Allahabad Court March 2005 Judgments

Ravi Prakash Agarwal Son of Late Krishna Das Agarwal, Licensee (Under ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2412

Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of order of State Government (Appellate Authority) dated 21.06.2002, by which appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has been rejected.2. Petitioner was running a cinema hall and had charged a sum of Rs. 5,55,178/- towards the maintenance charges in the financial year 1997-98 from the cineviewers and admittedly, out of the aforesaid amount only a sum of Rs. 3,46,572 81p. had been shown to have been incurred in the maintenance and the balance amount of Rs. 2,08,605.19p. remained unused. District Magistrate, Varanasi in its order dated 29.03.2000 also held that a sum of Rs. 1,05,950.80p. which was shown incurred for diesel, mobil oil, security guard and cinema carbon were not the expenses for maintenance of cinema hall and accordingly, petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,14,555.99p. Again...

Wilson Diesels (P) Ltd. Through Its Partner Sri Pramod Kumar Agarwal V ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)347; 2005(185)ELT350(All)

Rajes Kumar, J.1. In the present writ petitions, petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 24.12.1999 and 11.11.2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as'CEGAT').2. Brief facts of the case are that the M/S India Casting Company. Balkeshwar Road. Agra was a partnership firm in which Sri V.K. Agarwal, A.K. Agarwal, G.K. Agarwal and Smt. Manju Rani Agarwal were the partners and engaged in the business of manufacturing of generating gets M/S Generators and Alternators India, D-2. Site-4 Sikandra, Agra was also manufacturer of generator sets and alternators. The officials of Directorate General of Ann Evasion (Central Excise), New Delhi searched the business premises of M/S India Casting Company, Balkeshwar Road, Agra. M/S Generators & Alternators India, D-2, Site-4, Sikandara, Agra, India House, Bye Pass Road, Agra, business premises of India Casting Company at Patna and business premises of M/S Wilson Diesel (P) Ltd, Pat...

Bishan Chandra Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1403; (2005)2UPLBEC1319

Shishir Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of termination of May, 1990 and further prayer for appointments of respondent Nos. 4 to 12 and to its approval by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) be quashed and further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to work as teachers.2. The fact arising out of the present writ petition is that petitioners were appointed and working as Assistant Teachers in Jain Basic Primary Vidyalaya attached to Jain Inter College, Rampur. The primary institution is being run in the same premises and the Management is also the same. Earlier, it was not in grant-in-aid but by letter dated 21.10.1989, written by the Direction of Education to all the District Inspector of Schools, which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, inspection was made by the District Inspect...

Suneel Kapoor and ors. Vs. Viiith A.D.J. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2419

Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This writ petition has been filed' by the landlords whose release application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 30.4.1998 and shop in question was released in their favour. However, Rent Control Appeal No. 123 of 1998 filed by the tenant was allowed by the respondent No. 1 on 23.8.1999. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 23.8.1999 passed by respondent No. 1.2. The dispute relates to a shop situate in Mohalla Gudari Bazar Chowk, Shahjahanpur which was let out to Vishnu Saran Agarwal, father of respondents No. 2 to 5 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400 excluding municipal taxes and electricity charges. Late Laxmi Narain Kapoor and his brothers were owners and landlords of the shop in question and the application was moved by Laxmi Narain Kapoor as 'Karta' of the joint Hindu family. He died on 22.11.1999 and as such, his on...

Smt. Ganeshi Devi and anr. Vs. Iind A.D.J. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2982

Krishna Murari, J.1. In response to a notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') the petitioner filed objection denying having any surplus land on the ground infer alia that her plots have wrongly been shown as irrigated and she is entitled for benefit of the area reduced during consolidation operation while determining the ceiling area. Objection as well as appeal filed by her was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved she filed Writ Petition No. 2631 of 1977 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.3.1979 and the case was remanded back to the appellate authority to re-determine the twin questions whether the land was irrigated or not in accordance with the provision of Section 4A of the Act and whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the area reduced during consolidation, afresh.2. After remand by this Court, the appellate authority also remanded the matter back to the prescribed authority. The pre...

Lallu Alias Chandrika Prasad and ors. Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2006(1)AWC428

O. P. Srivastava, J.1. This appeal stems out of a suit for possession over the property details whereof are given in para 1 of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from demolishing or causing any damage to the said property.2. The suit was valued at Rs. 240. The suit was contested by the defendants who inter alia took the plea of undervaluation of the suit and insufficiency of the court fee. Learned trial court framed preliminary issues regarding undervaluation. The value of the suit was determined at Rs. 30,000 as against Rs. 240. The plaint was directed to be amended accordingly and letter written to the District Judge for transfer of the suit to the court having pecuniary jurisdiction as the valuation of the suit had exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court where it was instituted.3. On the letter written in pursuance of the order of the Court, the District Judge transferred the said case to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)...

Cwt, Agra Vs. Shri Prem NaraIn Agarwal and Sons

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN151(All)

ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, 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 Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee-HUF was entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in respect of its share in the value of immovable property belonging to the partnership firm M/s. Agarwal Enterprises in which the assessee was a partner 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The dispute relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee who is a partner in the firm, namely, Agarwal Enterprises claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of the cinema building owned by the firm. The said claim was not accepted by the assessing authority. But the Tribunal has allowed the same.3. Heard Shri A.N. Ma...

Cwt, Agra Vs. Smt. Shand Devi Agarwal

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN612(All)

ORDERBy the Court1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi 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 Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee HUF was entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in respect of its share in the value of immovable property belonging to the partnership firm M/s. Kanhaiya Ice Factory in which the assessee was a partner.'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The dispute relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee who is a partner in the firm namely Kanhaiya Ice Factory claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of the factory building owned by the Firm. The said claim was not accepted by the assessing authority. But the Tribunal has allowed the same.3. Heard...

Cit Vs. Jai Prakash Associates (P) Ltd.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN392(All)

ORDER1. 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:Questions at the instance of department'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of interest paid on deposits in excess of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annumQuestions at the instance of assessee'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the value of free residential accommodation provided by the assessee-company to its directors and employees should not be computed as per rule 3(e)(iii) of...

Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs. Bank of India

Court: DRAT Allahabad

1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendants/appellants against the order dated 31"1 August, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad, whereby and where under the prayer made by the appellants for keeping the sale of Chennai and Mumbai properties till disposal of M.A. No. 149/2003 has been rejected. The appeal is on a short point; as to whether the D.R.T., Allahabad had any jurisdiction to order for sale of the Chennai and Mumbai properties mortgaged with the respondent-bank, when no recovery certificate have been issued till that date regarding the compromise decree passed earlier and when such compromise decree was challenged by filing an application by the respondent-bank for issuance of recovery certificate regarding the original claim amount of more than Rs. 8.00 crores, when the terms and conditions of the compromise had already been failed.2. To consider the disputed point as raised in the appeal, background of the case is necessary to ...