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.
Chandrapal Singh, Son of Sri Khandari Singh Vs. Xiith Additional Distr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2891
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Deepak Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.2.The Post of Pradhan of Village Mallpur Jannua, Tehsil Billari, Moradabad was declared as reserved constituency for Scheduled Castes in respect of elections, which were to be held in the year 2000. Sri Chandra Pal Singh, petitioner on the basis of Caste Certificate obtained by him from the Tehsildar contested the elections for the said post of Prdhan of Village Mallpur Jannua. In the elections so held, Sri Amar Singh, respondent No. 3 was also one of the contestant. The result of the said elections was declared on 26th June, 2000 in which the petitioner Sri Chandra Pal Singh defeated Sri Amar Singh, (the petitioner, secured 447 votes while the respondent No. 3 secured only 429 votes). Sri Amar Singh filed Election Petition being Election Petition No. 8 of 2001 under Section 12-C of the Panch...
Committee of Management of Bahudhandhi Inter College and anr. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1493
1. This Special Appeal has been filed by the Committee of Management of the Bahudhandhi Inter College, Sonahita, Jaunpur, and another against the judgment and order dated 9.2.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 27005 of 2004.2. Two separate sets of elections are said to have been held on 28th September, 2003. Through one set, Dukhi Shukla claims to be the Manager while through the other set Sri Nanhkoo Ram Yadav claims to be the Manager. The matter relating to the recognition of these rival Committee of Managements, said to have been elected on 28th September, 2003, came up for consideration before the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000. The Joint Director of Education by his order dated 23rd June, 2004 directed that since the aforesaid two elections were not held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and that the tenure of the earlier Committee of Management elected in the year 2000 came to an end after a peri...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Prakash Associates P. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(All)471; [2006]281ITR419(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 of this court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the claim of investment allowance is allowable ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and material available on record, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law, in deleting the addition made being payment of interest exceeding 15 per cent, on the deposits ?2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent-company is engaged in the business of construction of tunnels, bridges, roads, etc. It claimed investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act. It had also paid interest amounting to Rs. 59,622 and Rs. 63,943 f...
Cit Vs. Rakesh Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN160(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following two questions of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this court:'1. Whether in law and on facts of the case the Tribunal was justified in confirming the CWT(A)'s decision deleting the addition of Rs. 6,95,383 made on account of value of shares transferred to the Trust ?2. Whether in law and on facts of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid trust in existence even if the basic conditions of section 6 of the Indian Trust Act, were not satisfied fulfilled ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82.3. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the department and Shri Atul Mehra has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. We find that this court in CIT v. Comilla (IT Reference No. 41 of ...
Cit Meerut Vs. Dharmendra Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN170(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had any material to confirm the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 20,588 made by the Income Tax Officer as assessee's income from undisclosed sources ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83.3. The respondent-assessee has been assessed to the income-tax in the status of an individual. During the relevant accounting period, the respondent-assessee had purchased a plot of land measuring 139.58 sq. mts. situate in Mansarover Colony, Meerut from Shri S.C. Goel and Mrs. Bimla Goel. A search was conducted by the Income-tax department at the instance of said vendors....
Cit Vs. I.B. Nigam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN160(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two 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 Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India is not chargeable to the 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 Development Officers of LIC is business income and expenditure incurred in earning incentive bonus is an allowable deduction ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present references are as follows:The reference relates to the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1988-89.3. The respondent-assessee is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He had rece...
Shiv Charan Singh (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Xith A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC704; 2005(2)AWC1042
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the tenant, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and Order dated 5.5.1995 and 22.5.1998 passed by respondent No. 2 and 2.11.1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexures-2, 8 and 9 to the writ petition) respectively.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.3. It appears that S.C.C. Suit No. 99 of 1994 was filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant-petitioner from house No. 1/27, Indra Puri Chharra Adda, Aligarh and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages in the Court of Judge Small Causes. The suit was filed on 9.8.1994 and the Judge directed to issue summons to tenant fixing 8.10.1994 for final hearing. On 10.10.1994, summons was received back unserved and Court fixed 25.10.1994 for awaiting summons. On ...
Ram Das and Budh Ram Sons of Sita Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Special La ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2449
A.P. Sahi, J.1. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.3.1995 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad whereby the application of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected on the ground that the application of the petitioners moved under Section 18 of the Act for reference has been rejected. 2. We have heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. This Court had directed the petitioners to file a copy off the order dated 5.2.1990 whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act had been rejected. This order had been filed along with the supplementary affidavit. A perusal of the said order indicates that the application under Section 18 of the Act moved by the petitioners was rejected on a report being submitted that it was incompetent inasmuch as the petitioners have received the compen...
Som Pal Singh S/O Shri Mahinder Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through the Se ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2467; 2005(2)ESC1492
R.P. Misra and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. Heard Sri V.D. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel at length.2. We have examined the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies (Thirty Eight Amendment) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rule'), the vires whereof has been challenged by means of the present writ petition.3. A perusal of Rule 459 of the Rule would indicate that the same is a provision for providing quorum in respect of a meeting to be convened. In order to make it a valid meeting, the quorum has been made more than half of the total number of the members of the committee.4. Rule 460 of the Rule provides for passing of a no confidence motion by a majority of two third of the total number of the members of the committee of management. This provision appears to have been amended in order to allow a motion of no confidence to be passed only if, two third of the total number of the members of the committee of management vote in favour of su...
Cit, Meerut Vs. M.R. Soap (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN496(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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 I.T.A.T. was right to delete the addition made under section 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 4,99,175 holding that there existed no violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the payment were covered by rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1985-86.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent-assessee is a Private Limited Company which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of soap. For the assessment year in question the I.A.C. (Assessment) has made the following disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act:Rs.(i)M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Ghaziabad 8,000(ii)M/s. Kipton India Ltd., Ghaziabad 8...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »