Allahabad Court July 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.
Mahabir Prasad Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)199CTR(All)607; (2006)199CTR(All)607; [2005]149TAXMAN290(All)
ORDERRajes Kumar, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for the assessment year 1977-78 for opinion to this court :'(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the affidavits and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the assessee?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The applicant/assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is a Hindu Undivided Family and was engaged in the Sarrafa business and also had income from property and agriculture. The Income Tax department conducted a search at the business and residential premises on 23-9-1976.3. In the search conducted by the department, considerable ornaments and bullion were found both at the shop as well as at the residence, some of which were also seized. Besides the above, the Officers also seized a cash book in the search. The Commissioner (A...
Cit Vs. Pateshwari Electrical and Associated Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN240(All)
1. At the instance of CIT, Tribunal has referred three questions, 1, 2, 3 and at the instance of assessee, Tribunal has referred the following question, which is marked as question No. 4 under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this court relating to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that income from leasing of Balrampur Lodge to SBI, was assessable as business income and not as income from house property2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that expenses incurred on Nainital property be allowed as business expenses ignoring the fact that these expenses were not at all related to business activity3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that treatment of receipts from workshop,...
Shanker Lal Son of Sri Katwaru Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All294; 2005(4)AWC3292
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Petitioner has instituted this petition aggrieved by the judgment/order of the Addl. Commissioner dated March 3,2005 passed in revision which was preferred against the judgment and order of the trial court dated 3.11.2004 by which restoration applications dated 19.1.2004 and 14.9.2004 were allowed and exparte decree passed by the trial court dated 28.10.2003 was set aside.2. The factual matrix is this. The property in dispute consists of Plot no. 208/2 admeasuring 63 acre and plot no. 208/6 admeasuring 5 decimal situated in village Ruppanpur alias Paigambarpur, Pargana Shivpur Tahsil and District Varanasi, This land was initially recorded in the name of Sri Sita Ramji Trust Situated in village Pul Kuhna Pargana Shivpur Tahsil and District Varanasi. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A, & L.R.Act before Sub Divisional Officer Varanasi for the relief of declaring him as bhumidhar over the land in suit, to the exclusion of Sri Si...
Mohd. Ayub and anr. Vs. Xivth Additional District Judge and 3 ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2205
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The case has been taken up in the revised list. From the order dated 14.3.2005 it appears that three weeks' time was granted to the counsel for the petitioners for filing rejoinder affidavit. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 11.4.2005 when two weeks' time was granted to file reply to the recall application. Thereafter the case was listed on 25.4.2005 when delay condonation application No. 45997 of 2004 was filed along with recall application No. 45998 of 2004 without supported by an affidavit. The rejoinder affidavit was also not filed. On the next date, i.e., on 26.4.05 the matter was passed over on the illness slip of Sri Prabhakar Sinha, counsel for the respondents. On 3.5.2005 the case was passed over on the illness slip of Sri Manu Saxena, counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents was again granted six weeks' time and no more to file rejoinder affidavit in the recall application....
Ajai Kumar Singh Son of Sri Madan Pal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicatu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: [2006(106)FLR850]
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sthelkar for respondents.2. The District Judge, Deoria advertised 48 vacancies of Class III employees to be filled up by selections vide advertisement published on 13.9.1999. Out of these 48 vacancies, 36 were on the post of Clerks in Grade III, 05 on Paid Apprentices and 07 on Stenographers. The petitioner was placed in the waiting list of paid apprentices it serial No. 2. All the selected persons joined. There was no further vacancies on which the petitioner could be appointed within a period of one year i.e. The validity of the select list in terms of Rule 14 (3) of the U.P. Subordinate civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules 1947. It appears that four employees of the Judgeship were suspended and consequently District Judge appointed some of the persons out of the waiting list on these short term vacancies. The petitioner was given the short term appointment caused on suspension of One o...
Smt. Chhakko Devi Wife of Bharat Lal Vs. Director General, Medical Hea ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC596
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia for petitioner end learned Standing Counsel for respondents.2. It is admitted in the counter affidait that the petitioner Smt. Chhako Devi was appointed as Part; Time Cook. after interview by Departmental Selection Committee, by the then Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi on 21.12.1987 on consolidated pay of Rs. 350/-per month, and that since then she is working regularly. Dr. M.G. Singh, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi, however, in his counter affidavit dated 5.5.2003 has disputed! the fact that the petitioner is working on full time basis and they her pay could not be revised as the Stale Government has not revised the salary of part time cooks Fixed by the Government Order dated 15.1.1986 which has been annexed as annexure-CA-23. A perusal of the Government Order dated 15.1.1986;shows ; that by this order the Joint Secreitary.Health and Deputy .project Coordinator,! Government of U.P. had communicated to the Project1 Director and Famil...
Munish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2207
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for considering the grievances of the petitioner and exclude the names of several hundred persons from the voter list.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, election of office bearers of the Gram Panchayat are to be held. For that purpose voter list was prepared in 2001. This time when over list has been prepared, the names of the villagers of another village, i.e. Sherpur Atmadpur have wrongly been included in the voter list of the village Sherpur, and therefore, their names should be deleted from the voter list.3. We have heard Shri K.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel appearing for respondents.4. The procedure in this regard is prescribed under the Act, 1947 and Rules, 1994, Section 9 of the Act, 1947 deals with the procedure for preparing the electoral roll for each territorial constituency. Sub-section (7)...
Vidyarthi Advertisers Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2145
1. Connect with Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005, Anand Mohan v. Union of India and Ors., and other connected writ petitions.2. Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit wherein a list of location of its hoardings area, size, month, Adv. Tax, Site Rent, Re. Amount and total amount deposited have been indicated.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that Hoardings, the periods in respect of which, have already expired, have been removed by the petitioner. It is further stated that other hoardings, in respect of which, period has not yet expired, but amount has been deposited, may be allowed to continue and Respondent/Nagar Nigam be restrained from damaging the same.4. Since existence of hoardings on crossing is in particular hazardous for. public life and also not conducive for having smooth traffic, we direct the petitioner to remove within three weeks from today all hoardings, if they are within 100 metres of crossing and mentioned at Sl. No. 70 to 215 in the chart attached to ...
Baldev Raj Vs. Rakesh Kumar Mittal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3189
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. R. Sharma who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.2. In view of order proposed to be passed it is not necessary to invite a counter-affidavit and both the counsels have agreed that the matter may be disposed of at this stage itself.3. The petitioner approached this Court by means of this writ petition for quashing the order dated 10th March, 2005, passed by the prescribed authority whereby an application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the4. The brief facts of the case are that before the prescribed authority the landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which has been registered as P.A. Case No. 23 of 2003. When the application came up before the prescribed authority, the prescribed authority granted time for filing written statement. The petitioner-tenant did not file any written statement. Even after expiry of 90...
Jabir Son of Sri Shah Mohammad Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ885; 2006(1)AWC480
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Vishesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner, Jabir, claims himself to be the owner of Tata 407 vehicle bearing Registration No. UP. 23/4016. The said vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of one Sri Ram Prasad, son of Pooran Singh. The dependents/legal heirs of the deceased, Ram Prasad, initiated proceedings for compensation under Section 166 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Act, which were registered as Motor Accident Claims Petition 11 of 2003 (Chandra Pal and Ors. v. Jabir and Ors.). The aforesaid Motor Accident Claims Petition was decided under judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Moradabad dated 28th October, 2004. The relevant portion of the said judgment and reads as follows:'Yachika anshtah virudh vipakshigan ish had tak sweekar ki jati hai yachigan beema company vipakshi sankhya 2 sey 240000/ rupya do lakh chalish hajar rupaye {pratikar may vyaj 8 pratishat sadharan vyaj ki dar s...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »