Allahabad Court October 2006 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.
Nainu Mal Hot Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(All)150; [2007]294ITR185(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad 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 confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 thereto2. The reference relates to the Assessment Year 1989-90 in respect of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follow:The applicant has been assessed to income tax during the assessment year 1989-90 as a registered firm. During the course of the assessment proceeding, three cash credit entries of Rs. 26,000/- appearing in the name of Master Manish Matlani, Rs. 78,000/- appearing in the name of Master Hitesh Matlani and Rs. 61,000/- appearing in the name of Master Lucky Matlani were noticed by the Assessing Authority. He...
Shri Raj Kumar Chaurasia Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(All)133; [2007]288ITR329(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:Assessment Year 1973-74:1. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee was guilty of concealment and of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in relation to the income of Rs. 6,500 from cold drink business in the name of Smt. Vijai Laxmi Chaurasia?Assessment Years 1974-75 to 1976-77:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty on the basis of findings arrived by it in the quantum appeal?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sherwani Sugar Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(All)146
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for opinion to this Court1. Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the I.T.A.T. has not exceeded its jurisdiction by omitting and allowing the miscellaneous application of the assessee when it amounted to revision of its own order which is not permissible in law, and which cannot be covered as a mistake apparent from record, which only can be rectified Under Section 256(2)?2. Whether in law and on facts, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that the closing stock of free sugar as on 30-6-1978 should be valued at two different rates i.e. 42704 Qtls. should be valued at Rs. 85,58,293/- being the amount realised on sale upto 30-11-1978 which is after the closing of the previous year and the balance from sugar of 28,789 Qtls. should be valued at Rs. 207.86 per qtls. which was the cost price a...
Swadeshi Paper Stores Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: (2009)23VST295(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 25, 2006, relating to the assessment year 1995-96.2. The applicant was carrying on the business of paper. The original assessment order was passed on December 23, 1997. It appears that on the basis of certain information, proceeding under Section 21 of the Act was initiated and in pursuance thereof, order under Section 21 was passed on September 21, 2002. The applicant filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Varanasi. Before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) the applicant challenged the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act apart from the merit of the case, inter alia, that the notice under Section 21 of the Act was not served upon it and the entire proceeding was barred by limitation. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), vide its order dated March 12, 2003, allowed the appeal and s...
Rastriya Inter College Through Its Principal Daya Shanker Pathak and D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2006
Reported in: AIR2007All76
S.U. Khan, J.1. As pure question of law is involved hence there is no need to call for counter affidavit.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for respondents.3. Secondary schools recognized by U.P Board of High School and intermediate were required to deposit registration fees by 1.10.2006 for examination of 2007, petitioner deposited the fees on 3.10.2006 as is evident from Treasury Challan. Through annexure 1 Rs. 13000/-were deposited and through annexure 2 Rs. 13360/-were deposited in Sub Treasury Sakal Diha district Chandauli.4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner DIOS has not issued the forms on the ground that amount has been deposited late. 1.10.2006 was Sunday and 2.10.2006 being Gandhi Jyanti was national holiday. If a deposit is to be made by a particular date and the said date is a holiday then it can be made on the next opening day and it will have to be treated as deposit within time. In the Limitation Act under Se...
Jag Jeevan Prasad Gupta Son of Shri Thakur Prasad Gupta Vs. Labour Cou ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR358]
Rajes Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 03.11.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U. P. Gorakhpur Misc. Case Nos. 42 of 1991 and 45 of 1992.2. The petitioner was working as a Boiler Attendant in the respondent establishment and was due to retire in the month of October 1987, but was allowed to continue in service up to April, 1989 by way of extension. However, he was asked to leave on 30.4.1989. Admittedly, he was occupying a residential quarter provided by the respondent. By means of two applications, petitioner claimed salary for the period of May, 1989 to December, 1991 on the ground that he was not paid gratuity on the date of retirement which was due and thus, in view of Clause-11 of the Standing Order, his services was deemed to be continued and was entitled for full wages and all fringed benefits. Both the applications have been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner could not va...
Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(All)477; [2007]293ITR656(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. 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 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in refusing the assessee's right to cross examine the persons whose statements were relied for making the addition of Rs. 1,18,799/- and in not following the principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court judgment in : [1980]125ITR713(SC) 2. The reference relates to the Assessment Year 1975-76.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follow:The assessee is a company. Besides other activities of business, it was also manufacturing vanaspati oil. It had been supplying vegetable oil to the traders including M/s Vishwakarma Oil Traders, Kanpur. The said firm was having wholesale licence for holding the vansapati oil. The Income Tax Department had conducted a...
Jagannath (Prajapati), Compulsorily Retired Additional District and Se ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR601]
Sushil Harkauli and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.1. The petitioner was a member of the U.P.-Higher Judicial Service and was posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoria. He was compulsorily retired by an order of the Governor (appointing authority) dated 17.5.2005, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 'I' to the writ petition. The petitioner, by this writ petition, challenges the said order of compulsory retirement.2. It is not disputed that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed on the recommendation of the Screening Committee, which was approved at a Full Court meeting of the Allahabad High Court and upon the consequent recommendation by the High Court to the Governor.3. In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer reported in : (1992)ILLJ784SC it has been held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 34 of that law report that an order of compulsory retirement can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only if the Court ...
J.C. Seth Son of Late Sri R.G. Seth Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR126]
Pradeep Kant and Sanjay Misra, JJ.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Vikas Budhwar and the learned State Counsel Sri B.K. Yadav.2. The petitioner who was initially appointed as Sanitary Inspector in Municipal Board, Lucknow was absorbed in the U.P. Palika Administrative (Superior) Services vide order of the State Government dated 6th March 1971 but that order became the subject matter of challenge in writ petition No. 4328 of 1978 filed by Sri Kamlesh Nath Agarwal and Sri Vidhya Nath Tiwari. The High Court quashed the order aforesaid (dated 6th March 1971) vide its order dated 9th May 1978. The petitioner preferred an Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court wherein an interim order of stay was passed saying that the petitioner shall not be reverted from the post of Up Nagar Adhikari. The petitioner, thus, continued to hold the post of Up Nagar Adhikari in pursuance of his absorption in the Palika Centralised Services. However, during the pendency of the aforesa...
Universal Subscription Agency Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(All)62; [2007]293ITR244(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s Universal Subscription Agency Private Limited, seeks the following reliefs:(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices dated 25.10.2000 and 4.9.2000 (Annexure - IV, V, VI & IX) issued under Section 147/148 of the Act for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1997-98.(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent not to proceed further in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 25.10.2000 and 4.9.2000 (Annexure IV, V, VI & IX) issued under Section 147/148 of the Act for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1997-98.(iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.(iv) Award cost of the petitioner to the petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follow:Accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »