Allahabad Court April 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.
Shayam Sunder Lal S/O Sri Mukut Bihari Lal Vs. U.P. State Road Transpo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR83]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 29.9.l995. (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 126/91. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court has held that there is no evidence on record from which it can be deduced that the workman was habitual of carrying passengers without tickets. It is further held in the award that there is also no evidence from which it can be ascertained that he has any other source of income and that if he is reinstated without payment of back wages there is possibility of 'his reformation and the purpose of punishment would also be served.3. The services of the petitioner-workman had been terminated w.e.f. 30.12.1989. Aggrieved by his termination he had raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court, U.P., Kanpur where it was registered as Adjudication Case ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand Kumar and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(All)225; [2006]281ITR111(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Court :'1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in vacating the confirmation of the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Act at Rs. 32,548 for asst. yr. 1987-88 ?2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the penalty order is also required to be vacated on account of being excessive in the quantum without appreciating that the quantum of penalty is fixed by the provisions of Section 271B of the Act ?'2. The reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The return of income for the asst. yr. 1987-88 was due to be filed on or before 30th June, 1987, whereas it was actually filed on 29th Sept., 1987. The respondent-assessee had also filed audit report dt. 10th Sept., 1987, along with the return...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]286ITR655(All)
1. The 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 Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of deduction on account of expenses incurred against income from incentive bonus, held assessable as income under the head 'Salary' ?2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:3. The reference relates to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90.4. The respondent-assessee is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He has received incentive bonus. The Assessing Officer has treated the amount of incentive bonus as part of salary and did not allow any expenditure incurred by the respondent-assessee for earning that incentive bonus apart from the standard deduction permissible under Section ...
Cit Vs. Chauhan Bros.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]150TAXMAN45(All)
ORDERThe 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 provisions of section 271(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)'s action in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-The reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85.The assessee-respondent is a registered partnership firm for the assessment year 1984-85. The return of income was filed late by more than 29 month on 15-1-1987. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act were initiated and after affording opportunity of hearing a sum of Rs. 15,140 was imposed as penalty. The assessing officer, while l...
Cit Vs. Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: [2005]149TAXMAN586(All)
ORDERThe 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 Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 30,396 under the head 'Bonus to senior members of employees who are not entitled to receive the bonus under the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965' is an admissible expenditure under the Income Tax Act?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are as follows :The reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee-respondent is a limited company and derives income from the manufacture and sale of sugar. The assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs.30,396 as bonus paid to the senior members of the staff in view of the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(A), Kanpur. The Tribun...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›