Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2010]320ITR101(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench has referred the following question of law for opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in deleting an addition of Rs. 23,236 under Section 40A(3) even though the assessee made several payments to the same person on the same day which aggregate exceeded Rs. 2,500 and did not take any plea of any hardship or exceptional circumstances or that they had no idea that they would have to pay to the same person on more than one occasion during the course of a particular day.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1986-87. It was found that the assessee made payments in cash exceeding Rs. 2,500 during the course of the assessment. The assessing authority consequently by invoking Section 40(3) disallowed them.3. The assessing authority was not satisfied with the reply given by the assessee and, therefore, disallowed the aforesaid amounts by invoking Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC423
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. Under challenge is an order of dismissal passed on 28.5.2003 by the Commandant, 39th Battalion, P.A.C., Mirzapur dismissing the petitioner, a P.A.C. constable from service.3. It emerges from the record that a formal regular enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on account of charge that on 22.1.2003 at about 20.45 p.m., the petitioner was found drunk, and was causing nuisance in the campus of 39th Battalion P.A.C., Mirzapur. He had also been using abusive language and committed serious misconduct on the same date. A detailed charge-sheet was served against the petitioner. The P.A.C. constables who had heard commotion and the duty clerk making entries in the General diary who had recorded the events which had occurred on 22.1.2003 were produced as witnesses. The petitioner Hari Lal alongwith other constable Virendra Nath Rai were involved in the in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC26
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Tulika Prakash advocate for the contesting respondents.2. Two writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment since basic questions involved are identical and does not require separate decisions.3. These writ petitions are on behalf of landlord Sarika Kedia, wife of Pankaj Kumar Kedia and Sumit Kumar Kedia who are landlords of the dispute premises which is part of original property of Sri Shanker Lal Kedia. The property was bequeathed in favour of Jagdish Prasad Kedia, Gopi Krishna Kedia, Sumit Kedia, Saurabh Kumar Kedia alias Arun Kumar Kedia, Sri Sanjay Kedia and Smt. Sarika Kedia by virtue of Will dated 5.1.2001. One third share came to the petitioner. However, it is a subject-matter of dispute of Suit No. 56 of 2003. A release application was preferred by the landlord vide P.A. Case No. 2 of 2005 which was in occupation of Sri Vishwanath Kanodiya, respondent No. 2 (tenant). The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(All)388; [2010]186TAXMAN88(All)
1. List is being revised.2. Neither learned Counsel for the respondent or respondent is present nor there is any request for pass over or adjournment of the case in spite of service having been reported to be sufficient, as per order-sheet.3. Heard Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records.4. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity] against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Appeal No. I.T.A. No. 822/Luc/2009 & ITA No. 826/Luc/2006 for the Block Period 1.4.1995 to 17.10.2001.5. This Court, vide order dated 27.3.2009, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment was not justified simply because the warrant of search was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC22
Pankaj Mithal, J.1. The plaintiff Jamuna Das instituted original Suit No. 709/1968 ag Inst the defendants Dani Ram and others for declaration that he is entitled for 1/8th share in the two anna charhawa/bhent (offerings) received at the Giriraj Ji Maharaj Mukharbindu situate in village Jatipura, district Mathura and for recovery of Rs. 112.50 paise from defendant No. 1 as his share in the offerings till 30.11.1968. The suit was mainly contested by the defendant No. 1 Dani Ram. The other defendants contended that they have already paid the share of the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 and as such no relief is liable to be granted against them.2. The court of first instance framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is cosharer in bhent chadhava? If so, his share?2. Whether the plaintiff is daughter's son's son of Girdhar? If so, is the plaintiff cosharer either by succession or by sale-deed?3. Whether the plaintiff is prohibited by custom from receiving bhent-chadhava?4. Relie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC17
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 1.8.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Civil Revision No. 74 of 2000 which has been filed against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad dated 12.9.2000 by which the suit has been dismissed.3. It appears that the petitioner was the Chairman of Moradabad Nagar Palika Parishad, Sambhal, Moradabad in the year 1994 and on the basis of the resolution of the Board, the Tractor Pratap Model No. 284 was directed to be auctioned. An enquiry has been set up and it was found that the tractor was sold on a lesser amount causing loss to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sambhal, Moradabad and, therefore, the petitioner has been held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 72,000. It appears that the petitioner filed Suit No. 469 of 1995 and during the pendency of the suit also preferred a Writ Petition No. 16697 of 1995...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC19
Rakesh Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel and perused the record.2. It emerges from perusal of the records that a Writ Petition No. 1611 of 2009, Smt. Triveni v. State of U.P. and Ors. was filed in this Court, which was disposed of vide a judgment and order rendered on 21.1.2009. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1611 of 2009, Smt. Triveni Devi, had raised a grievance that she had made an application to the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar with regard to illegal activities of the respondents, namely, Panna Lal, Chandra Pal, Amar Pal, Moti Lal, Natthi, Babu, Binnami, Shish Pal, Mahesh, Kehar, Banwai and Murari, all residents of village-Rampur Bangar, Tehsil Jewar, district Gautam Buddh Nagar, who were encroaching upon the public utility land, that is, the Chakroad and Drain.3. The Court had taken note of the submissions put forth by the petitioner and had directed the Collector, Gautam Buddh Nagar to look into the matter, ...
Tag this Judgment!