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.
Mohd. Farooq Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR484(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (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 was justified in holding that the asses-see was liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read with Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, despite the Press Note dated May 27, 1968, issued by the Ministry of Finance and Circular No. 8-WT dated November 15, 1968, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes 2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 in the proceedings arising out of penalty imposed under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :4. The respondent-assessee is the owner of the premises No. 171, Jajmau...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj NaraIn Pratap Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR74(All)
R. K. Agrawal, J.1. The 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 the Tribunal is justified in view of the provisions of Rule 1A of the Second Schedule of the Surtax Act in holding that in order to arrive at the capital base provision of taxation to be taken is not the provision at the end of the year but as it stood at the first day of the commencement of the accounting period ?2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1980-81 regarding the imposition of tax under the provision of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1964 Act').3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent-assessee has been assessed to income-tax in the status of a private limited company. The dispute relates to computation of capital base for the purposes of allowi...
Cit Vs. Bharat Sugar Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN627(All)
ORDERBy the Court 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 Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the deletion of Rs. 1,02,415 being the difference between the actual payments made for purchase of sugarcane and the amount payable as per the purchase price fixed by the Government, from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent/assessee is engaged in manufacture of sugar. During the relevant accounting period the Government of U.P. had issued a notification on 8-6-.1978, fixing the purchase price of cane sugar at the rate of Rs. 9 per quintal. Subsequently, in terms of an interim ...
Cit Vs. R.K. Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN142(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 ITAT was legally justified in holding that the assessment computed under section 143(3)/148 for the first time is not a regular assessment within meaning of section 2(40) of the Act and, therefore, no interest under section 139(8) and under section 217 is chargeable ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81.3. Heard Sri R.K. Upadhya, learned standing counsel for the revenue. No body appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee.4. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of K. Govindan & Sons v. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 192, the assessment made for the first time under section 143(3)/148 of the Act is to be treated as regular assessment within the meaning of section 139(8) of the Act....
Cit Vs. Surendra Kumar Pankaj Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN268(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 and having due regard to the provision of section 271(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1996-972. The reference relates to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The facts giving rise to the present reference in brief are as follows :-3. The respondent-assessee is a registered firm. For the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 the assessee failed to file the return of income within time laid down under section 139(1) of the Act. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act were initiated for the aforesaid two assessment years and aft...
Shiv Mahendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Singh and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2471
Krishna Murari, J.1. The petitioners 23 in numbers claim to be members of a Farming Co-operative Society known as Bitraula Co-operative Farming Krishi Society Limited duly registered under U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The said society was founded in 1959. After its formation the society applied for mutation of its name in the revenue record. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order date 1.4.1960 directed to expunge the name of the individual tenure holders, who had pooled their lands in the society and recorded the same in the name of society. Apart from the land pooled by the members, the society subsequently purchased certain area of land out of its own fund.2. On the enforcement of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act being Act No. 1 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act), a notice under Section 10 (2) was issued in the name of the petitioner No. 1. The entire land recorded in the name of the society was clubbed with his holdings on the ground that the same is b...
Ram Kesh Son of Sri Dev Narayan and Dev Narayan Son of Sri Shiv Brat V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC1910
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri R.C. Gupta for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19/21.12.2001 and that a writ of mandamus may be issued to respondent No. 2 to appoint petitioner No. 1 on the post of handling labour in place of his father who has been retired on medical ground before attaining the age of superannuation.3. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that his father who is petitioner No. 2 was working as handling labour in the office of Food Storage Depot at Azamgarh. The Food Corporation of India had issued a circular dated 2.2.77 which was further amended by another circular dated 3.7.1996 (a true copy of the same Annexure-1 to the writ petition) which provided for recruitment procedure of appointment of kin of departmental workers who seek retirement on medical grounds on their own request in relaxation of the procedure of getting sponsored...
Naeem Ahmad Vs. Abdul Majeed
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2045
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are that the petitioner is the tenant of the shop in dispute which is situated in a building which is purchased by the respondent-landlord on 1st December, 1993, from its erstwhile owner. The landlord immediately after purchase of the aforesaid building issued a notice to the petitioner that since he has purchased the building, in which the shop in dispute is situated, the rent shall be paid by the petitioner-tenant to the respondent-landlord. The petitioner on receipt of the notice sent the rent for the month of December, 1993, January and February, 1994, which was not accepted by the landlord. Therefore, the tenant started depositing the rent under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 30th May, 1995, the landlord filed an application purporting to be an application under Section 21(1) (b) of the Act for release of ...
Harihar Bhole Nath Misra Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1962
1. This petition filed by Harihar Bhole Nath Misra challenging the judgment and order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal rejecting the claim petition of the petitioner against the order of punishment passed under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations.2. The petitioner was inducted in the government service as Routine Grade Clerk in the office of the Inspector General of Registration, U.P. on 4.1.1958. On promotion being granted from time to time, he retired from the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration which post he was holding since 1.1.1985, on 31.3.1993 on reaching the age of superannuation.3. Prior to his retirement on 31.3.1993, he was suspended on the charge of causing loss of revenue to the Department vide order dated 24.3.1993 and a charge-sheet of the same date was also issued to the petitioner levelling a charge with respect to under-valuation of the 12 sale deeds. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension by means of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanpur Cigarettes (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)414
1. The assessee/respondent is a company manufacturing cigarettes under the franchise agreement with M/s G.T.C. Industries Ltd., Bombay. The asst. yr. 1986-87 was the first year of the business of the assessee-company and it has paid a sum of Rs. 3,26,520 as royalty charges to M/s G.T.C. Industries Ltd. during the asst. yr. 1986-87 and claimed payment of said royalty charges as revenue expenditure. There was an agreement dt. 18th Jan., 1985 of the assessee/respondent with M/s GTC Industries Ltd. according to which the assessee/respondent was required to pay royalty charges of Rs. 1 per thousand cigarettes manufactured for acquiring GTC's know-how and technical assistance as well as for the use of their trademark. The GTC company as per the terms of the agreement agreed to provide the services of its technical personnels as and when required, but the marketing of the cigarettes was left to the assessee/respondent. The said agreement was valid for a period of five years with the condition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »