Allahabad Court May 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.
Laxmi Transport Co. and ors. Vs. Chief Operation Manager and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1685
B.S. Chauhan, J.1.This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Condition No. 11 (a) of the General Tender Terms and Conditions, Condition No. 2.17 under the head Guidelines for Tenders of Tender No. UPSO/IOC/PT-BITUMEN/2005-08/1 dated 28.4.2005; and for directing the respondents to accept the tenders of the petitioners in pursuance of the Tender No. UPSO/IOC/PT-BITUMEN/2005-08/1, dated 28.4.2005 without imposing the Condition No. 11 (a) of the General Tender Terms and Conditions, Condition No. III, Clause 1 (a) of Condition N.E. and Condition No. 2.17 under the head Guidelines for Tenders of Tender No. UPSO/IOC/PT-BITUMEN/2005-08/1, dated 28.4.2005.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners had been engaged earlier in contract for transporting the Bitumen Ex. Mathura to various other places. However, on 28.4.2005 the respondents had invited tenders for the transportation of Bitumen changing the terms and conditions of the Tender Agreement drastic...
Arun Maini Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2193
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Verma, advocate, for the appellant and Sri S. P. Gupta, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, advocate for the contesting defendant/respondent- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).2. This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.11.2004, passed by Special Judge/Additional District Judge. Gautam Budh Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1993, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1993, passed by the 1st Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad in Original Suit No. 862 of 1988, Arun Maini v. New Okhla Development Authority. An injunction suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant in respect of a Gas Godown situated in Sector 16A NOIDA, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, Ghaziabad. Both the courts below refused to grant the relief of injunction in favour of the appellant. When the appeal was presented as many as 7 substantial questions of law were formulated bu...
Shri Abdul Majid Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)364; [2006]281ITR366(All)
R.K. Agrawal and Rajes Kumar, JJ.1. The income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the assessment year 1981-82 for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT, was in law justified in rejecting the additional grounds challenging the validity of assessment order on the basis of illegal initiation of proceeding Under Section 148 without complying the provision of Section 148(2)?. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the amendment in the provision of Under Section 139(8), 215 and 217 instiled with effect from 1.4.85 world be applicable to assessment of earlier years completed after 1.4.75 and so charging of interest in case of assessee Under Section 138(8) as well as Under Section 217 is perfectly justified as the assessme...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nem Kumar Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)328
1. The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred to following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this Court:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that, the condition in Clause (2) of Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 regarding specifying in the statement in the manner in which such income had been derived, was fulfilled ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 without taking into account the finding of the AO that the assessee had not paid the tax in respect of such income before furnishing his return of income ?2. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1988-89.Brief facts of the case are as follows : Assessee-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is assessed to tax in the status of individua...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)565
1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for the asst. yr. 1986-87 for opinion to this Court:Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest under Section 7B of Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964 was admissible to the assessee, even though, the advance tax of Rs. 18,00,000 due on 15th Dec, 1985 was paid on 8th Feb., 1986 and there is no provision under the said Act entitling the assessee to claim interest where interest is paid after the statutory date, i.e., 15th December, of the relevant previous year though before the 31st March, of the relevant previous year?2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company was not previously assessed, by way of regular assessment under Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and as such, it was liable to submit its estimate in respect of co...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amrit Banaspati Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: [2006]284ITR484(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment year 1986-87 for opinion to this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest under Section 7B of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was admissible to the assessee, even though, the advance tax of Rs. 18,00,000 due on December 15, 1985, was paid on February 8, 1986, and there is no provision under the said Act entitling the assessee to claim interest where interest (sic) is paid after the statutory date, i.e., December 15, of the relevant previous year though before the March 31, of the relevant previous year?2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company was not previously assessed by way of regular assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referr...
Bharat Rice Mills Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(All)481; [2005]278ITR599(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In Income tax Reference No. 170 of 1990, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', 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 justified in holding that proceedings Under Section 148 were validly initiated in the present case and that, therefore, it would not be correct to quash the penalty proceedings on the ground that the re-assessment proceedings were void ab initio for the failure of the I.T.O. To record the reasons for initiating proceedings Under Section 147 for assessment year 1981-82.'Whereas in Income Tax Reference No. 62 of 1992, the tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Act for opinion to this Court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty und...
Om Shanker Srivastava S/O Chaturbhuj Lal Srivastava Vs. District Magis ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2055
Sanjay Misra, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 9/10th November 2000 passed by the District Magistrate Juunpur dismissing the petitioner from service. The main grounds upon which the said order has been challenged by the petitioner is that the said order was not proceeded by any proper enquiry proceedings and immediately after submission of the reply to the charge sheet, the enquiry officer without conducting any proper enquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice has submitted his enquiry reports finding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him. Reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice issued thereafter was also not considered by the respondent No. 1 who has passed the impugned order.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Ahalmad in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer Jaunpur. On 19.5.1997 a first information report was lodged against the petitioner by one Mohan Lal Prajapati which was...
The State of U.P. Vs. Jalal Ahmad Alias Ashraf Jalal Son of Mohd. Suhe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3482
M.C. Jain, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.11.1980 passed by Sri B.N. Srivastava, the then I Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 168 of 1978. The sole accused respondent Jalal Ahmad alias Ashraf Jalal has been acquitted of the charges of Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. He absconded during the pendency of the appeal and Sri R.B. Sharma, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae under order dated 28.2.2005 to argue the appeal on his behalf. We have heard Sri K.P. Shukla, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State and the said amicus curiae for the sole accused-respondent. The record has been summoned which we have perused carefully.2. The background facts may be related shortly so far as they are necessary for the decision of the appeal. Prosecutrix Km. Sushila PW 3 was the eldest daughter of Ram Naresh Prasad PW 1 from whose house at a distance of about two furlongs towards north the accused resided. The accused Jalal Ahmad ali...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raza Textiles Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)694; [2006]281ITR229(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred to following four 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 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in ignoring the fact that the assessee had not established the genuineness and nature of the payment and as such, had failed to discharge the onus for deduction of the payment in computing the business income.2. Whether on the facts (sic.) and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in admitting the claim for payment of incentive bonus over and above the admissible bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act.3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in stating that if a particular payment does not fall within the first provision it can still be considered under the second proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »