Allahabad Court January 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cit Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN69(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for opinion to this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the extra amount realised by the assessee-as sale price of sugar, over and above the levy price fixed by the Government, was not a taxable receipt in the hands of the assessee for assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.3. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue and Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.4. It maybe mentioned here that the Tribunal while holding that the excess amount realised by the respondent-assessee did not form part of the sale price had relied upon its earlier decision in the case of CIT v....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Giriraj Udyog (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: [2005]273ITR495(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law in pursuance of the direction issued by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):'Whether, in law and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs. 35,250 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of accrued interest ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1981-82. The assessee is a private limited company and it has three units, one of them is Kumar Cold Storage, the income of which is generally from storage and rental. The assessee has adopted the mercantile system of accounting. In the relevant assessment year the assessee did not charge any interest from sundry debtors outstanding for a period of more than six months as it was considered doubtful as on December 31, 1980. The total amount of these debts was shown at Rs. 1,02,416. The interest was not debited to the ledger of the deb...
Narendra Kumar Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC805; (2005)1UPLBEC800
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Lekhpal and was posted in district Chandauli. The petitioner was placed Under suspension by an Order dated 12.6.1998 and was subsequently, issued a charge-sheet dated 30.7.1998, which was duly served upon the petitioner's son on 10.10.1998. The charge-sheet relies upon three reports, namely, reports dated 12.6.1998 submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar Chakia, district Chandauli. The charges were with regard to the carelessness and negligence of the petitioner in the performance of the official duties. On receipt of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 15.10.1998 asking the authority to kindly supply the three reports, which had been mentioned in the charge-sheet. Instead of supplying the charge-sheet, an advertisement dated 29.10.1998 was published by the respondents in the local newspaper directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the charge-sheet, failing which an acti...
Krishna Kumar Vs. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC608; [2005(104)FLR980]; (2005)2UPLBEC1603
Vineet Saran, J.1. The father of the petitioner was a Class IV employee of the respondent-State Bank of India. He died in harness on 28.3.2000. Immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected by the competent authority stating that the financial condition of the family cannot be termed as penurious in view of the terminal benefits, investments, savings, family pension, etc. which have been paid and were being received by the family of the deceased employee. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9774 of 2002 which was allowed by this Court with the direction that the respondent-Bank shall re-consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the Bank in Special Appeal No. (833) of 2004. After considering various decisions of the Apex Court and also the scheme of the bank for appointment on compassi...
In Re: Mridul Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC611
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. This letter/petition addressed to a Hon'ble Judge of this Court was received on 21.12.2004, with a prayer to pass necessary orders for his compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Judge to whom it is addressed passed the following order on the back of the first page of the letter.'Registrar GeneralRegister the letter as a writ petition (Group 'A') (Single Judge) and place it before appropriate Court as a fresh case for appropriate orders.Dated: 21.12.2004Sd/-'2. In compliance of the order, the matter was submitted before the Stamp Reporter, who has reported a deficiency of Rs. 100/- and that has further made a note that the writ petition is not in proper form and is not supported by an affidavit, and that is how the Registrar General of the Court has placed the matter before me, as the appropriate Court.3. Sri K.R. Sirohi, the Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court on administrative side, was requested to assist the Court. On the basis of the recor...
Ram Surat Singh and ors. Vs. Inspector General of Police
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1066; (2005)2UPLBEC1154
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Chaubey, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Sub Inspector and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are Constables. Two show cause notices were issued separately to each of the petitioners to show cause why punishment should not be awarded, namely, one month's pay be not deducted and adverse entry for the year 2000 be not imposed. The show cause notices stated that the petitioners were found indulging in illegal gratification from the truck drivers and that they misbehaved with the Inspector. Naini when he accosted them. Based on the show cause notice, the petitioners submitted their reply and thereafter two punishment were awarded by orders dated 5.9.2002, passed by the Superintendent of Police. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, filed an appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 26.10.2002, passed by the Deputy Inspector General o...
Sanjeev Rai Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)44; IV(2005)BC111; 2005CriLJ1977
ORDERK.N. Sinha, J.1. Both the revisions arise out of the orders dated 15-7-2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 1, Varanasi, exercising the powers of Judicial Magistrate. Common question of law is involved in both the revisions, hence taken up together for hearing and disposal.2. According to the facts of Criminal Revision No. 3418/2004 revisionist Sanjeev Rai filed a complaint against Ram Prasad Mishra under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the ground that Ram Prasad Mishra had borrowed Rs. 30,000/-in January, 2003. After six months, the complainant demanded his money back whereupon the respondent No. 2 Ram Prasad Mishra gave five cheques of Union Bank of India, which were deposited by the revisionist in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sigra, Varanasi, but it was dishonoured on account of want of fund. The complainant gave a notice for payment of money, and on its nonpayment, filed the complaint.3. On the similar ground, the complain...
Ravina Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2019
ORDERK.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10-8-2004 passed by 12th Additional Sessions Judge Mathura, in Sessions Trial No. 224/ 2004 State v. Jitu and Ors. under Section 307/504, IPC.3. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that an FIR was lodged by Ravina against four persons under Sections 307/ 504, IPC. The case was investigated and charge sheet was submitted only against two accused excluding Manju and Jaiveer. The case was committed to the Court of session and the trial was being held by 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura. During the course of trial the prosecution examined witness Ravina son of Patiram as P.W. 1. This witness, during the course of his examination-in-chief named all the accused and also stated the weapon in the hands of all the accused including in the hands of Manju and Jaiveer. It has been stated by him that Manju and Jaiveer wer...
Gyanendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2322
ORDERK.N. Sinha, J.1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 26.7.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 3 Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 802/ 2001. State v Rakesh Singh and Ors..2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that revisionist Gyanendra Singh lodged the report (Annexure 2) against Rakesh Singh, Kalika Singh Raj Karan Singh and Ram Singh who reached the place of occurrence with the fire arm and injured Shyam Singh and Ram Singh. The case was investigated and Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet only against two accused leaving Kalika Singh and Raj Karan Singh. The case was committed to the court of Session and during the course of trial two witnesses namely Gyanendra Singh Complainant was examined as PW1 and Shyam Singh was examined as PW2 After their examination the prosecution moved an application for summoning Kalika Singh and Raj Karan Singh as accused to stand trial together with the accused already facing trial ...
Vijendra Sharma Alias Vijendra Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2743
ORDERRavindra Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Vinay Saran learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and Sri D. S. Tiwari learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 28-6-2002 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chhata, Mathura, in Criminal Case No. 27 of 2000, whereby cognizance was taken by the learned, Magistrate and the petitioners were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and the judgment and order dated 21-10-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2002 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that one Rameshwar the father of Smt. Vimlesh ,the respondent No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners on 7-12-1999 in case crime No. 301 of 1999 under Section 498A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibit...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »