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.
Kishan Lal and ors. Vs. Xiith A.D.J. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2856
Mukteshwar Prasad, J.1. This petition under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the tenants for quashing the judgment and order dated 17.8.1996, passed by Additional District Judge, Meerut (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby Rent Control Appeal No. 455 of 1991 was allowed and order-dated 25.11.1991, passed by the prescribed authority was set aside and application for release under Section 21(1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was allowed.2. Heard Km. Anuradha Asthana, holding brief of Sri R. K. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amitabh Agrawal, holding brief of Sri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.4. Brief facts, giving rise to this petition are as under :Admittedly, the petitioners resided on the ground floor of House No 188 situate at Arvindpuri, Meerut, as tenants and paid Rs. 37.50 P. per month as rent to...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jauharimal Goel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(All)54; [2008]296ITR263(All)
1. The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for opinion to this Court for the asst. yr. 1987-88 :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 95,000 made under Section 68 of the IT Act on account of unproved credits appearing in the accounts of the assessee in the names of his daughters ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law to hold that the unproved credits appearing in the account books of the year under consideration cannot be assessed in the relevant assessment year under Section 68 of the IT Act ?2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.The opposite party assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') was assessed to tax in the status of individual. The accounting period for the previous year ended on 11th Oct., 1986. In the boo...
Cit Vs. Friends Briquettes Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN165(All)
ORDER1. 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 ascertain the net profit rate disclosed by the assessee for the assessment year 1987-88 and apply the said net profit on Rs. 22 lakhs and make the addition ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1987-88.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent-assessee has been assessed to income-tax in the status of a registered firm. Its previous year ended on 31-3-1987. It derives income from manufacture and sale of Briquettes. For the assessment year in question, it had filed its return of income on 7-3-1989 declaring an income of Rs. 26,915. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eastern Novelties Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]284ITR579(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 of this Court :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, subject to various conditions being duly complied with 2. The assessment year involved is 1986-87.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :4. The opposite party/assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was a registered partnership firm and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in the year under consideration. The assessing authority has rejected the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that the required reserve had not been credited in the balance-sheet filed along with the re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rohit Organics (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)512; [2006]281ITR194(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New 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 :1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITA was legally correct in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of business loss in the assessment year 1988-89 in contravention of the provisions of Sections 80 and 139(3) in this regard ?2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The assessee filed a return of loss on August 25, 1988. The claim of loss was disallowed on the ground that the return was filed beyond time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was allowed. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee con...
State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Gaya Kunwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3880; (2005)2UPLBEC1409
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. This case comes before us upon a reference by learned Single Judge who felt that there is apparent conflict between a Bench decision and a Single Judge decision on the point set out below and being of considerable importance which require consideration by a Larger Bench.2. The facts, inter alia before the learned Single Judge, in short were that respondents, Smt. Gaya Kunwari and Smt. Bimla Devi were the wives of late Banarasi Prasad. It is said that as per partition decree of the Civil Judge, Unnao, issued way back on 19.1.1948, the shares of respondents No. 2 and 3 were separated and both of them have been, living separately and managing their holdings independently. On the other hand, the State Government had taken stand in the Court below that the holdings of all the three respondents should be treated as one for the purposes of the Ceiling Act and surplus land. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to point out that respondent No. 1 Banarasi Prasad s...
Mahajan Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Trade Tax Tribunal and Commissioner of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD819
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor on behalf of the revisionist, Learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondent.2. Mahajan Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Khurja Road, Sikandrabad, District Bulandsahar has filed this revision under Section 11(7) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the order passed by the U.P. trade Tax Tribunal dated 3.12.204, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 22 of the Act has been rejected.3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that second appeal No. 1143 of 2001 (Assessment Year 1996-97) preferred by the Assessee, was partly allowed vide order dated 16th October, 2004 and the tax liabilities of the Assessee was reduced by Rs. 47,639.25. The remaining amount as assessed under the order of the Assessing Authority as confirmed by the First Appellate Authority was directed to be recovered.4. On behalf of the Assessee an application under Section 22 of the Trade Tax Act was filed on the Ground that the hearing of the appeal was conc...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Harnandi Devi (D.) Through L.Rs. and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All266; 2005(3)AWC2560
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri V. K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 1.2.2000, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hapur in Suit No. 52 of 1998 whereby the application No. 101 Ga 2 made for one month's time to produce stay order from High Court has been rejected and evidence of the plaintiff petitioner has been closed. The said order has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier he had made an application before the trial court for deciding the preliminary issue. The said application was rejected on 8.3.1999 by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had filed Revision No. 123 of 1999 before this Court wherein an interim order dated 24.9.1999 was obtained by him and further proceedings before the trial court in Suit No. 52 of 1998, Union of In...
Chinta Mani Vs. Vice Chancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur Univer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2053
1. The appeal is taken up and summarily disposed of since the parties have argued at full length and it is a pure question of construction.2. The writ petitioner-appellant claims to have been entitled to appear as an ex-student for the B.A.-III final examination in the year 2003, but he was not permitted so to appear by the respondent-University. Accordingly, this litigation started.3. To understand the problem, one has to bear in mind that the old days, when a person could appear as a private candidate year after year as long as he chose, are now unfortunately gone. The University puts a restriction upon the possible number of appearances permitted to a student for the purposes of clearing examinations like the final graduation examination.4. The University of Gorakhpur, which is the only one concerned before us does not permit private students to appear at all. Appearance is restricted to regular students and to ex-students. The writ petitioner cleared the first year and the second y...
Om Nath and Baij Nath Sons of Ramdhari Vs. Additional Commissioner, Az ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC204
Sanjay Misra, J.1. List has been revised .No-one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Sri V.K.Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramji Srivastava learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 4 and 5 is present. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that he has filed counter affidavit as back as in the year 1998 but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner till date and the matter is pending before this Court wherein interim order of status quo dated 2.3.1998 is operating.2. The averments as made in the writ petition indicate that it is the case of the petitioner that on 15.1.1998 ,a patta was allotted to the respondents no.4 and 5 and it was duly approved by an order dated 6.5.1998. It is alleged that the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the said patta under Section 122-C (6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the ground that the disputed plot is his Sirdari and he has been in possess...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »