Allahabad Court April 2005 Judgments
Malik Packaging Through Its Partner Smt. Sofia Malik Vs. the Commissio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)417; [2006]284ITR374(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s Malik Packaging, through its partner, Smt. Sofia Malik, seeks the following reliefs:-'(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur dated 28.2.2000 (Annexing '4') to this writ petition pertaining to assessment year 91994-95.(b) to issue any other and further writ or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'2. As the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is being heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage itself in accordance with the Rules of Court.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:-According to the petitioner, it is a partnership...
Tag this Judgment!Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Prem Kishore Upadhyay and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3630
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-tenant, by means of present writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 19th January, 1995, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 24th September, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-4 and 11 to the writ petition.2. The facts of the present case, in brief, are that the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in question and the respondents are the landlord. The landlord filed an application Under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before the prescribed authority for release of the accommodation i.e., House No. 38/107, Gilish Bazar, Kanpur on the ground that the landlord-respondent is an employee of Indian Air Force, who was posted out of Kanpur and since his retirement is due in the month of April, 1991, he was posted at Kanpur, so ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corpn.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: [2008]296ITR642(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred to following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) should be regulated with reference to the total income computed before making any deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?The reference relates to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:Respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') is a Government Corporation incorporated under State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in the year 1953. The affairs of the company are managed by Government Officials acting as its Managing Directors under the supervision of Board of Directors consisting of some Government Officers and some othe...
Tag this Judgment!Dubri Son of Rameshar Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3140
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri Shahid Masud, learned counsel for the petitioner,2. In spite of service of notice contesting respondent nos. 4 to 10 have not chosen to enter appearance and to contest.3. The dispute relates to khata no. 139 of village Hathgani, Pargana Arail, district Allahabad which was recorded in the basic year solely in the name of the petitioner. Opposite party nos. 4 & 5 filed objection claming to have perfected rights by adverse possession. Another objection was filed by opposite' party nos. 6 to 10 claiming rights as co-tenant in the disputed khata on the ground that land in dispute belonged to one Jia, their maternal grandfather and was inherited jointly by the petitioner and the respondents who are all his grandsons. The claim of the respondents was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he was co-sharing the land in dispute with his maternal grandfather and with the consent of the Zamindar his name came to be recorded in the revenue records. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Prasad son of Late Sri Ram Badan Ram Vs. State of U.P. through ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR343]
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. On 15.11.1987, the petitioner's father died in harness. On 22.11.1987, the petitioner filed an application for an appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974. The District Agriculture Officer issued an appointment letter dated 24.12.1987 appointing the petitioner on the post of Kamdar, which is a Class-IV post. The petitioner accepted this appointment and joined the office of District Agriculture Officer, Ghazipur. It transpires that the petitioner made several representations praying that he should be appointed on a post which commensurate with his educational qualifications. These representations. remained pending for several years and ultimately an order dated 8.12.2004 was passed appointing the petitioner as a junior clerk on a class III post. This order was subsequently, recalled/cancelled by orders dated 24.2.2005 and 3.3.2005, which are impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had already been appo...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhai S/O Late Shri Sevaki Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1154]
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and have perused the record.2. The petitioner was initially appointed on a Class 57 post in Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the year 1965. On attaining the age of supperannuation, he retired from the service on 5.4.1995. He has filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him all his retiral benefit including gratuity, provident fund, pension etc. which he may be found entitled to after his retirement on 5.4.1995, regarding which, the petitioner claims that he has been sending representations to the respondent-Company from time to time.3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Madhu Prakash, learned counsel for the contesting respondents that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. He has submitted that undispute...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1984
1. Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.2. With the consent of the parties' Counsel, this special appeal is being disposed of finally.3. The appellant, who was appointed as Angan Bari Karyakatri on 16.8.2003 is faced with an order of termination of her appointment/ engagement passed by the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari on 19.7.2004. The reason for terminating the engagement of the appellant as Angan Bari Karyakatri was the complaint made against her saying that her income certificate was forged. On the aforesaid complaint, an enquiry was conducted by Tehsildar Lambhua district Sultanpur who on making the enquiry cancelled the income certificate of Pushpa Pandey and held that the income of the appellant was Rs. 2,960 per month which was above the poverty line. The order was passed by the Tehsildar on 23.7.2005. After cancellation of the certificate issued by the Tehsildar and the order passed by him holding that, the appellant's...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Prescribed Authority and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2083
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition, by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 10th January, 2002, passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the prescribed authority has directed impleadment of only some persons as heirs of the deceased-tenant, Narain Das. It is stated by landlord that only some heirs were residing at the time of death of Narain Das in the accommodation in question, namely, the widow Smt. Shanti Devi, daughter Km. Mala and son Binod Kumar and refused to implead four more sons namely Jai Raj, Shanker Lal, Suresh Nath and Narendra Kumar. The wife and the heirs of the deceased Narain Das, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 10th January, 2002, on the ground that the view taken by the prescribed authority is not correct and all the heirs of deceased Narain...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Jal Nigam Karmchari Mahasangh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2060
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Upendra Nath Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 and perused the record.2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the resolution of Board of Director, in so far it authorised the chairman to introduce inter cadre transfer of ministerial staff dated 17.12.2004, order dated 26.2.2005 passed by opposite party No. 3 and the consequential order transferring the office bearers of the petitioners' association as well as other members of the employees association from head office cadre to field cadre.3. Petitioner No. 1 is the employees association of all Class II employees of U.P. Jal Nigam working throughout the State of U.P. Petitioner No. 2 is its State President. Petitioner No. 3 is employees association of all Class III employe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: [2006]284ITR418(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') for opinion to this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the incentive of Rs. 2,10,67,677 received by the assessee by way of additional quota for free sale sugar which is directly connected with the business activities of the assessee, was on capital account and hence not taxable as a revenue receipt ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 13,98,899 made under Section 43B in respect of unpaid production incentive bonus covered under Section 36(1)(ii) of the IT Act?2. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1990-91.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the business of manufacture and sale o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »