Allahabad Court May 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Accounts Officer

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2006]281ITR302(All)

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), relating to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 for opinion to this Court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in reducing the penalty imposed under Section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, resorting to the proviso to Section 272A(2) inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, with effect from October 1, 1991 2. The brief facts of the case are that admittedly, the assessee-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), filed Form No. 26C for both the years on November 27, 1990, as against the due date of May 20, 1989, and May 20, 1990, respectively, resulting in a delay of 510 days and 145 days. The assessing authority levied the penalty under Section 272A of the Act on account of late filing ...

State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Labour Court and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2005(106)FLR506]

D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings have been exchanged and the learned Counsel for the parties, agree that the petition may be disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.This writ petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court dated 27.1.1997 by which the claim of the respondent-workman has been accepted and his termination has been held to be against the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a direction has been issued for his reinstatement with full back-wages.3. Brjef facts for the decision of this petition are that the respondent-workman approached the Conciliation Officer with the allegation that he has been working since July, 1978 in the Forest Department but without any reason or complying with the provisions of the Act, his services were dispensed with on 141.1992. Upon a failure report a reference under Section 4-K of the Act was made to the Labour Court, Ghazipur, which reg...

Chhavi Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ379CAT

1. Two spinal questions of law emerge out of this O. A. filed by the applicant: (a) While the Rules provide for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the inquiry report and in case of disagreement it is the Disciplinary Authority which could strike a note of disagreement with reasons thereof, whether instead of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority could record such a disagreement? (b) Whether judicial intervention is permissible at the stage when the note of disagreement is recorded by the Competent Authority? 2. A brief calendar bearing on the landmark events, giving the core facts relevant and required for consideration of the above questions, is necessary right at the beginning.3. The applicant, posted as Executive Engineer, Jhansi, North Central Railway, had to face a charge sheet dated 29.10.1997 for certain alleged misconducts, which he stoutly denied by his reply dated 06.02.1998. The logical sequence of appointment of Inquiry Officer, conducing of inquiry and submi...

State Bank of India Vs. Vishnu Steel Re-rolling Mills

Court: DRAT Allahabad

1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant-bank against the part of the judgment and order dated March 11, 2002, passed by the then presiding officer, DRT, Jabalpur in O. A. No. 246 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the claim of the bank has been reduced to Rs. 17,57,199 from the claim of Rs. 34,17,000 and also reduced the interest from the bank rate to that of simple interest. Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm having partners defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and Shri Vishnu Kumar Rongta (deceased) and was engaged in doing business of steel re-rolling mill and for the purpose of purchase of raw material and meeting other business needs, partners of respondent No. 1-firm applied for financial help from the appellant-bank and cash credit loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 15.50 lakhs at interest of 16.5 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests together with other charges on the cash credit facility. The partners had bound them by executing several documents as required ...

Charan Singh Son of Jageshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretar ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2005All230; 2005(3)AWC2302

R.P. Misra and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent - State Government in respect of the grant of mining lease to the respondent No. 3 over plot No. 29/3, Area 30 Acres, Buksha Khadar, Tehsil Mahauda, District - Hamirpur, by the impugned order dated 2.4.2004 and the consequential lease dated 5.4.2004. The petitioner contends that the right of the petitioner to apply for the aforesaid area has been arbitrarily taken away by the respondents by not resorting to publication of any notice making the land available to the public at large and, as such, the petitioner and such alike persons have been denied their right to participate in the proceedings for grant of mining lease. The order has been challenged on the aforesaid grounds and also that none of the ingredients of Rule 68 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1963 exist so as to warrant exercise of power therein by the State Government in favour of the respondent No. 3 whose earlier lease had be...

Meena Khanna Wife of Vinod Kumar Khanna Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Thr ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2296

Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 17.6.2003 passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allaharad in Revision No. 51 of 2002-03 Smt. Meena Khanna v. State contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition and the order dated 11.3.2003 passed by respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Allahabad, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition before this Court2. Brief facts giving rise cause of action of instant writ petition are that the petitioner had purchased a house in Sadiapur locality in city Allahabad for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- through registered sale deed on 5.2.1993 from one Dr. Budh Prakash son of Late Shyam Sunder Lal. The market value of the house in question on the date of execution of sale deed according to the circle rate fixed was Rs. 1,79,920/-( Rupees One lakh seventy nine thousand nine hundred twenty), but the stamp duty on the sale deed in question was paid by th...

Shiv Ram Singh S/O Shri Harnam Singh Vs. Board of Revenue,

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3717

S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Impugned herein are the orders dated 28.11.1988, 2.1.1992, 16.8.1992 and 15.3.1999 passed by Addl. Collector, Etawah, Additional Commissioner (Admn.) Kanpur Division Kanpur and the Board of Revenue respectively.2. It would appear that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of Board of Revenue being aggrieved by the order of Addl. Collector Etawah whereby allotment made in favour of the petitioner-dated 19.3.1986 was rescinded allegedly without application of mind. It would appear that the petitioner also knocked at the doors of every appropriate forums in between and ultimately, invoked the procedure of this Court for appropriate relief.3. From a scrutiny of submissions advanced across the bar it would appear that the grievance of the petitioner in the forefront is that the order canceling allotment had been passed exparte and without application of mind and further that the authority recorded no finding citing reasons for his conclusion.4. I have heard learned c...

Ramdas Singh S/O Shri Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Irriga ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2005(106)FLR310]

Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay pension, gratuity, GPF Transfer allowance already sanctioned and other post retiral benefits due to the petitioner.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner was working as Seench Paryavekshak in the irrigation department. According to him his date of birth is 26.02.1941 and, therefore, under the Service Rules he was to retire on 28.02.1999 being the last date of the month in which he completed the age of superannuation. This date of birth had not been correctly recorded in the service records accordingly the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 4 for correction of the date of birth. However as this representation was not being decided by the concerned authority (respondent No. 4) petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40390 of 1996, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.12.1996 with a direction to t...

Sukhdev Steel Cutters and Welders, through Its Proprietress Smt. Ira S ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1119; 2005(3)ESC1642

B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2004 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar by which the learned Court refused to make the award of the Arbitrator dated 27.02.1999 the Rule of the Court.2. Smt. Ira Sharma, the proprietress of the appellant-firm appealed in person and submitted that the aforesaid judgment and order should be set aside and the aforesaid Award should be made Rule of the Court. She was confronted as under what circumstances the respondent No. 1, Sri Lalta Prasad, the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar has been impleaded as a party by name in this appeal. Her reply came that he failed to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has violated mandate of Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. In fact, we tried to find out as what directions had been issued by their Lordships which have not been complied wi...

Omax Shoe Factory Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)31; [2006]281ITR268(All)

Rajas Kumar, J.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 'Act') for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether the learned ITAT was legally correct in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,85,000/- in the Trading Account and holding that report to the provisions of Sections 145(1) of the Act was justified?2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present case are that the applicant/assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') was carrying on the business of manufacture and export of leather shoes. The assessee's turnover in the year was Rs. 107.65 Lacs. The profit shown thereon was Rs. 15.60 Lacs giving a gross profit rate of 14.5%. The gross profit for the immediately preceding assessment year was 17.6%. During the course of assessment proceeding, Assessing Authority made an enquiry about gross profit, assessee had submitted that the exports in the year had been m...