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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radhey Shyam Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)189
1.The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee on 26th March, 1976 was not a valid return ?2. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment framed by the ITO on 24th March, 1977 was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 153 of IT Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment made on 24th March, 1979 was invalid in the eye of law ?2. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1973-74.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :That the assessment year under reference is 1973-74, for which the accounting year ended on 31st ...
Cit, Meerut Vs. J. Batte
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN51(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J. 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 of this Court :'1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to treat the Continental Shelf to the Exclusive Economic Zone as not forming part of India priorto 1-4-1983 for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the income earned by the respondent-contractor for services rendered prior to 1-4-1983 on a rig located in the off-shore areas outside the territorial waters of India, was not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1983-84 ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference is as under :The reference relates to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84.3. The respondent-assessees are foreign nationals and non-residents. They rendered services on the...
Cit Vs. Premier Fuels Products
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN231(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, had 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 law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer under section 271B on the ground that same was not exigible where the audit report under section 44AB was filed along with a return under section 139(4) and no notice under section 142(1) had been issued ?'The present reference relates to the assessment year 1989-90.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent-assessee is a registered firm. It was required to get its books of account audited and obtain an audit report in prescribed Form No. CD-3 within the time prescribed under section 44AB of the Act. The audit report was obtained with...
Cit Vs. H.C. Verma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: [2005]149TAXMAN285(All)
ORDERBy the Court1. 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 Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80C in respect of NSCs of the value of Rs. 25,000 purchased by him on 24-6-1984?'However, the Tribunal has also referred the following two questions of law at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Officer was justified in law in reopening under section 143(2)(b) the assessment for the year 1985-86 of the assessee, already made under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in interpreting the words 'income chargeable to tax' used in section 80(2)(h)(i) as 'inc...
Cit Vs. Mithan Lal Puran Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN7(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1, 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 law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer under section 271B on the ground that same was not exigible where the audit report under section 44AB was filed along with a return under section 139(4) and no notice under section 142(1) had been, issued ?'2. The present Reference relates to the assessment year 1989-90.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:The respondent-assessee is a registered firm. It was required to get its books of account audited and obtain an audit report in prescribed form No. CD-3 within the time prescribed under section 44AB of the Act. The audit report was obtained wit...
Cit, Lucknow Vs. Ram Sanehighat Contractor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN536(All)
ORDERThe 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 and despite the provisions of Explanation below clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 44AC of the Income Tax Act, the I.T.A.T. is legally correct in holding that 'Nirgam Mulya' of Rs. 36,52,952 paid by the assessee could not be included in 'purchase price' for computing the profit under section 44AC of the Income Tax Act ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1991-92.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:Assessee, a liquor contractor filed return for the assessment year 1991-92 declaring an income of Rs. 5,51,504. Invoking the provisions of section 44AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessing officer completed the assessment. The assessee had paid an amount o...
Shri Jogesh Kumar Bhimsarya S/O Shri Anandi Lal Vs. Customs, Excise an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(103)ECC8; 2005(189)ELT412(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 06.05.1999 and 12.11.2001 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was bringing 420 quintals garlic alleged to have been purchased in Nepal after storing them in re-usable sacks in India. When the said consignment was in transit, it was intercepted by the Custom authorities and was seized mainly on the ground that the garlic in question was of a Chinese origin. The inference that the said garlic was of a Chinese origin was drawn on the basis, (1) sack in which the garlic was stored contained Chinese description and trade information was received from petty trader at Gorakhpur that garlic are not grown at Nepal and secondly, Sri Yogesh Kumar Bhimsarya gave statement that garlic was of Chinese origin. In the adjudication proceeding. Commissioner of Customs (P), Lucknow vide its order dated 8th March, 1999 confiscat...
U.P. Power Corporation Limited Through the Executive Engineer, Electri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2889; [2006(106)FLR381]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Shri Ranjit Saxena, the counsel for the petitioners and Shri Shyam Narain, the counsel for the respondents and perused the record.2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned award of the Labour Court dated 3.6.2000 passed in Adjudication Case No. 430 of 1994.3. The case of respondent No. 2 workman is that initially he was appointed as Daily wager in 1976. Thereafter he was again engaged with effect from 1.11.88 to 31.12.90 us Muster Roll employee on the post of Line Man in the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. His services were terminated on 1.1.1991 on the ground that the work was not available for him.4. Aggrieved by the termination, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Conciliation Officer which was registered as C.P. Case No. 89 of 1994 . On Conciliation proceedings having failed, the State Government referred the following matter of dispute to the Labour Court, U.P. Gorakhpur vide reference order dated 1.11.94 w...
Anurag Tripathi Son of Late Ravi Shankar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3474
V.K. Chaturvedi, J.1. This revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Ravi Das Nagar in Misc. Case No. 41 of 2005, Anurag v. Sushil and Ors., whereby application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. has been rejected.2. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior counsel assisted by Sri L.K. Dwivedi, counsel for the revisionist, Sri V.S. Misra, learned Government Advocate assisted by and A.G.A. and Sri A.B.L. Gour, senior counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Gour, Sri S.P.S. Raghav, Sri Dileep Kumar, counsel for newly impleaded respondents.3. Relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors., 2005(26) AIC-91 (S.C.) and Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi and Ors., 2002(45) ACC 342 (S.C.), learned counsel for the revisionist contended that where a F.I.R. has been registered, a second F.I.R. of the same offence is not prohibited.4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate as w...
Anil Kumar Srivastava S/O Sri Soharat Lal Srivastava Vs. Additional Di ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1917
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. This writ petition was earlier dismissed by an order dated 26.7.99 passed by learned Single Judge which was confirmed in Special Appeal on 18.11.99. Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 30.3.2001 set aside the aforesaid order and remitted this writ petition for fresh consideration. While remitting the matter Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed the following orders:-'Leave granted.The appellant had been appointed as a Junior Clerk on temporary basis and his services were terminated without notice. Thereafter, when he was not allowed to work, he filed a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court by an order made on 26.7.1999 dismissed the writ petition. It is pointed out that the appellant had been informed that he was not allowed to work because his appointment letter was itself purported to be a forged document. Whether it is so or not had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »