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.
Mohd. Mustkeem Siddiqui Vs. Smt. Jahida Khatoon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2073
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is tenant of the premises in question, i.e. House No. 105/155, Chamanganj, Kanpur, which is a residential accommodation, challenges the order dated 14th July, 2003, passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur, under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord, respondent in this writ petition, for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question has been decreed and revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 14th July, 2003, has been dismissed summarily by the revisional court vide order dated 3rd September, 2003, on the ground that the tenant-petitioner has not deposited any amount as directed by the revisional court, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-9 and 13 to the writ petition.2. The brief facts of t...
Mohd. Shafik Alias Mohd. Arif and ors. Vs. A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2065
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioners, who are the landlords of the accommodation in question, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge the orders dated 5th January, 2005 and 22nd March, 2005, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after be referred to as 'the Act', whereby the appellate authority by the order dated 5th January, 2005, have stayed the execution of the order under appeal during the pendency of the appeal and by the order dated 22nd March, 2004, the appellate authority have condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 22 of the Act.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners-landlords filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act for the release of the accommodation in question in their favour on the ground that the landlords bona fide required the said accommodation for their personal use. The respondents-tenants contested ...
Smt. Prabha Pathak and ors. Vs. Jawahar Lal Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2468
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-tenants, who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts are that the petitioners are tenants of the accommodation in question of which the respondents are the landlords. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act has been filed by the landlords on the ground that the accommodation in question may be released in their favour as they bona fide require the same. The petitioner-tenants filed written statement contesting the claim of the landlords. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record the prescribed authority arrived at a conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide and further the tilt of comparative hardship is also in favour of landlord. The prescribe...
Ravindra Dubey Vs. Special Judge, E.C. Act and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2071
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Ravindra Dubey who is son of Ikcha Shankar Dubey challenging the orders dated 30.9.1993, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur (Annexure-3A to the writ petition) and order dated 29.12.1993, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur (Annexure-3B to the writ petition) and the order dated 18.3.1996 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the revisional authority.2. In this writ petition the petitioner, Ravindra Dubey and respondent No. 6 are brothers and sons of respondent No. 7, Smt. Vidya Devi. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the landlords of the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner has come up with the case that his father, Ikcha Shankar Dubey was the tenant of the accommodation in question way back in the year, 1957...
Umesh Chandra Pandey Son of Sri Satya Prasad Pandey Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1980
A.K. Yog and B.B. Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard Sri Sanjiv Singh, Advocate, representing the petitioner and Sri Vivek Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. It is admitted at the bar that no notice need be sent to Respondent No. 5, Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (called 'the CAT) as it is non contesting/ redundant party. Since all the contenting respondents are represented and issue raised in this petition can be adjudicated on undisputed facts discernable from the documents filed along with this petition, we decide this writ petition finally at admission stage as contemplated under Chapter XXII Rule 2, Explanation II, Rules of Court, 1952.3. The salient and relevant factual matrix of the case, required for appreciating and to decide this petition are simple and short.4. Petitioner is an employee of Northern Railway (now North Central Railway, Allahabad). He was engaged as Mobile Booking Clerk at Vindhyachal Railway Station in early 1982. He work...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)175
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri D.D. Chopra, and Ms. Pushpila Bisht for the assessee.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, has been filed by the appellant on the following questions of law :'(1) Whether an assessee can be treated as having discharged the obligation placed upon it as per provisions of Section 44AB of the IT Act, 1961, only by submitting provisional accounts on the ground that its accounts for the preceding year were still to be finalized ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the CIT(A)'s findings and in cancelling levy of penalty of Rs. one lakh under Section 271B of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1990-91 ?'3. The assessment year, which is involved in the appeal, is the asst. yr. 1990-91. The assessee co-operative society has been constituted for safeguarding the interest of the cane growers and member unions. The activities of the assessee-society...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)433; [2005]279ITR396(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 opinion to this Court for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92.'Whether, the Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in allowing the benefit of Sections 80HH and 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the sole proprietary business of M/s. Khandelwal Wires ?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :3. The assessee in this case is an individual deriving income from the manufacture and sale of insulated wire under the name and style of Khandelwal Wires being a proprietary concern. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1990-91 deductions were claimed under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Act both at 20 per cent. of the profit from the alleged newly established industrial undertaking in a backward area. To consider the aforesaid claims, the Assessing Office...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Adarsh Cold Storage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)374; [2006]280ITR58(All)
1. The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this Court :'Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the benefit of deduction under Section 80J to the assessee for the asst. yr. 1978-79 ?' 2. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1979-80.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise of the present reference are as follows :The applicant is running a cold storage in Budaun. Originally, the cold storage was built in 1967 or 1968. After this, an additional chamber was completed during the period 1977-78 and 1978-79. This chamber had been constructed inside the same boundary wall. The assessee claimed relief under Section 80J on the capital employed in this new chamber. The ITO found that this was merely an expansion of the existing cold storage and it had common potato drying shed, tool room, water tank, etc. He also held that the same employees ...
Amritraj S. Punamiya, Huf Vs. Ito, Ward 24(15)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: [2005]3SOT547(NULL)
ORDERD.C. Agarwal, A.M.1. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:'1. One the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,57,000 made by the assessing officer to the total income of your Appellant in respect of credit to this capital account invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The lower authorities failed to appreciate that your Appellant has satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the credit in his capital account out of foreign remittance under the Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991 and therefore, the recipient is eligible for the immunities granted under the said Act.'2. The main grievance of the assessee is that the assessing officer has not granted immunity to him under Foreign Exchange Immunity Scheme 1991 and has added the sum of Rs. 2,57,000 as his income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The facts of the case are des...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dilip Kumar Kali Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(All)549
1. The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this Court:Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in granting registration to the assessee-firm holding that a genuine firm has come into existence whereas the constitution as specified in the instrument of partnership has not been given effect to inasmuch as the profits were not shared by the three partners only but also by other three persons ?2. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1982-83.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:Respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') has constituted a partnership vide partnership deed dt. 19th Oct., 1980 consisting of three partners having shares in profit and loss of 50 per cent, 40 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively, arising out of the business of purchase and sale of sarees in wholesale. Application for reg...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »