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.
Vishal Sahakari Awas Samiti Vs. Secretary Housing Section-3 and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1674
1. This writ petition has been filed raising a large number of disputed questions of fact claiming release of 50% of the land of the petitioner in Khasra No. 195 in village Mirzapur, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, which had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner claims to be a Registered Housing Society. A large area of land had been purchased by the said Society for the purpose of constructing the houses for its members but the State Government issued the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 11.6.1986 acquiring large area of land including that of the petitioner and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 16.6.1986 by resorting to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 5996 of 1986 before the Lucknow Bench of this Cou...
Govind Bajpayee and anr. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3019
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard Sri Pankaj Shukla, Advocate assisted by Sri Puneet Kumar, Gupta, Advocate, appearing for appellants and learned A. G. A.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-1-1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banda.3. The story of the prosecution is that the appellants Govind Bajpayee and Jugal Kishor were found in possession of contraband 'Ganja' and 'Afeem' being sold at the shop of the appellant Jugal Kishor. Before actual recovery could be conducted, the appellant Jugal Kishor had slipped away from the shop and at the time of search small packets of 'Ganja' weighing 150 gms. and 'Afeem' weighing 32 gms. were recovered and taken in possession. The accused Govind Bajpayee was taken into custody and after doing the spot formalities, the complainant PW 1 Tehsildar Singh, the then. Dy. S. P. (C. O.), Banda brought the accused and recovered articles along with recovery memo etc. to the Police Station and the F. I....
Shyam Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]152TAXMAN127(All)
ORDER1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act for opinion to this Court:1. Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the order of Wealth-tax Officer without considering the fact that the Wealth-tax Officer has not complied with the direction given by the AAC and has not given any details or basis for estimate?2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in not considering the issue of deduction of value of house property under Section 5(1)(iv) where issue was specifically raised?2. The Reference relates to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:The applicant has been assessed under the Act as an individual. The relevant valuation date was 31st March. Originally, the assessments were framed taking the net wealth at Rs. 2,00,000 for the assessment year 1974-75 an...
Electra India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: [2008]303ITR242(All)
1. 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 the opinion to this Court:1. Whether, on facts and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure on distribution of sweets, dry fruits and gift packs on the eve of Deewali being business expenditure could not be allowed under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act but its allowability was to be restricted under Section 37(2A) of the Act being expenditure in the nature of entertainment?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 99,586 incurred by the company in making donation in cash and kind to educational institution for development of play ground with Deer Park containing a sign board of the donors could not be allowed as deduction under Section 37 of the Act?2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The reference...
Vijay Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(All)546
1. Heard Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties.2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the notices dt. 4th Feb., 2005, 5th Jan., 2005 and 31st March, 2004, the copies of which have been annexed as Annex. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that the return for the asst. yr. 1997-98 was filed by the petitioner which was accepted by the assessing authority and intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was received by the petitioner on 15th July, 1998. The petitioner has further alleged that on 2nd April, 2004, the petitioner received a notice dt. 31st March, 2004 issued by opposite party No. 3 under Section 148 of the IT Act in respect to asst. yr. 1997-98 and thereafter the petitioner filed the return on 29th April, 2004. The petitioner has further alleged that opposite party No. 3 again issued notice on...
Cit Vs. Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN168(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, 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 justified in allowing the assessee's claim for investment allowance on the ground that the products manufactured by the assessee was not hit by item 1 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act ?2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to hold that the cash allowance and reimbursement paid to the employees does not amount to perquisites within the meaning of section 40A(5) ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85.3. The respondent is a public limited company. It is engaged in the manufacture of Indian Made Foreign and Country Liquor. It had claimed deduction on account of investment allowance of Rs. 2,51,500 in respect of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›