Allahabad Court March 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.
Committee of Management, Maharaja Harish Chandra Post Graduate College ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1427
A.K. Yog, J.1. Committee of Management, Maharaja Harish Chand Post Graduate College (the petitioner) is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29-9-2003/Annexure-14 to the petition passed by Respondent No. 3 the Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (rejecting petitioner's representation dated 3-8-2002/Annexure-l1 to the petition) in the matter of grant of 'affiliation' to run post graduate classes in Sociology and Economics; and hence filed this writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India claiming following reliefs-'(A) Issue a writ or direction or pass order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order No. E-52/9/45/ dated 29-9-2003 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-14 to this writ petition)'2. Maharaja Harish Chandra Post Graduate College, Moradabad (called the college) managed by the petitioner is an affiliated Post Graduate College of Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (called 'University') as contemplated under U.P...
National thermal Power Corp. (Singrauli Super Power Project) Vs. Sri J ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1147; [2005(105)FLR321]; (2005)2UPLBEC1522
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner challenges the order dated 30th October 1982 and the Award in Adjudication Case No. 147 of 1981 passed by Labour Court, Allahabad which is published on 20th July 1983 and annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.'KYA SEVAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK JAWAHAR LAL, PUTRA SHRI BABAI SURVEYER KI DINANK 15/2/81 SE SEVAYEN SAMAPTA KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHVA VAIDHANIK HAI/YADI NAHIN, TO SMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/ANUTOSH (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT?'3. The respective cases of the employer and employee are that the respondent-workman, Jawahar Lal, was employed on 3rd October 1977 as Survey Boy with the employer. His services have been terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation with effect from 15th February 1981. The workman, therefore, raised the dispute which has been ...
Brijpal Singh Bargoti S/O Misal Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Secret ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC1447
Sushil Harkauli and M. Chaudhary, JJ.1. We judge ourselves by what we think we are capable of doing while others judge us by what we have actually done.2. The petitioner thinks that he has performed an act of exemplary courage and valour and therefore he seeks out of turn promotion in the police service.3. The authorities by the impugned order dated 17.3.2002 have held that the petitioner has not done any act which can be said to be even courageous, what to say of exemplary courage and valour.4. According to the impugned order the petitioner was one of the members of police party of 16 policemen who had surrounded two criminals. The criminals being surrounded by such large police party were feeling helpless and therefore surrendered.5. Further according to the impugned order the large amount of arms and ammunition said to have been recovered from two criminals was sufficient for a long drawn out encounter. No such encounter appears to have take place. Further, no person was injured on ...
Cheap Cycle Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(All)173; [2006]281ITR166(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court, relating to the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 :'Whether, on a true and correct interpretation of the provision of law as contained in Section 139(5) r/w Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, and, Explanation thereto and application of such provisions to the facts of the case, the penalty for concealment and/or gross or wilful neglect was leviable in the instant case ?'.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1978-79 in proceedings arisen out of imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The applicant has been assessed to the income-tax in the status of a firm. Its accounting period for the assessment year in question ended on 31st of March, 1978. Return for the aforesaid previous year was filed by the applicant origi...
Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs. Smt. Chandrawati Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2985
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Present second appeal has been filed by the defendant appellant Smt. Nirmala Devi assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2000, passed by District Judge, Maharajganj in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1997 which has its genesis in judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Maharajganj, dated 25.10.1997, passed in Suit No. 57 of 1995. The impetratory relief sought by the defendant appellant is to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2000, passed by District Judge Maharajganj in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1997, restore the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1997, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Maharajganj in Suit No. 57 of 1995 and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.2. The bone of contention in the instant case are the two gift-deeds which according to the defendant appellant were executed by the plaintiff one in favour of the three defendants namely, Smt. Nirmala Devi, Smt. Meera Devi and Smt. Usha Devi. Subsequently, plaintiff instituted the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ganesh Dass and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)453; [2006]280ITR535(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the IT 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, in law, justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) who had erred in law in not deciding the matter in the light of the provisions of Section 41(2) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of compensation received for the units of the building and the items of machinery completely destroyed in the firm (sic) ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1984-85. The respondent/assessee is a private limited company. The accounting period for the assessment year under consideration ended on 31st Dec., 1983. A fire broke out in the month of August, 1983, in the respondent/assessee's mill. As a result of the damage to the flour mill, building and plant and machinery by ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Emkay Glass Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: [2007]288ITR582(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in restoring back the matter back to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to ascertain whether the deduction was allowed to the assessee in any year in the past for attracting the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while directing so, was correct in law, ignoring the facts that(i) taxability of refund was conceded by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals); and(ii) the collection of excise duty of Rs. 98,607 was undisputedly a trading receipt?2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference...
Cit (Central), Kanpur Vs. Commercial Auto Sales (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN148(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, 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 justified in holding that the provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1986-87.Assessment year (sic) in question, respondent-assessee had realised sales tax from its customers, which was paid over to the Sales Tax department within the statutory period even though it fell in the subsequent year. The assessing authority added the amount by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. However, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee.3. We have heard Sri AN Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.4. In view of the decision o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S. Bagga
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]284ITR577(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the incentive bonus paid to the Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India is not chargeable to tax under the head 'Salary' ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the incentive bonus earned by the Development Officers of LIC is business income and expenditure incurred in earning incentive bonus is an allowable deduction ?2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : 4. The respondent-assessee is a Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kanpur. He has rec...
Cit Vs. Goenka Polypack (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN154(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, 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 ITAT is correct in law in holding that the subsidy of Rs. 3,64,416 was given to the industry as a whole to remove the industrial backwardness of the region in selected districts and would not go to reduce the cost of the assets for the purpose of sections 32 and 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84.3. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.4. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd : [1994]210ITR830(SC) , the amount of subsidy received by the respondent cannot be deducted while working out the actual cost for the purpose...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »