Allahabad Court July 2009 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Deepak Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: [2009]317ITR351(All)
1. The present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 26, 1999. It has been admitted, vide order dated February 1, 1999, on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 is nothing but advance taken by the assessee and the provisions of Section 269SS do not apply to the facts of the case?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1990-91?2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:3. The present appeal relates to the assessment year 1990-91. The respondent-assessee had accepted various amounts from M/s. Babu Ram Ganga Ram, Suriyawan, Varanasi, ...
Raja Ram and ors. Vs. Smt. Son Kali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3478
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for cancellation of patta under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee through resolution dated 11.12.1992 allotted patta of different portions of land vested in it to 36 persons including Smt. Son Kali-respondent No. 1. Petitioner's father late Shri Radhey Shyam challenged the said order through application under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground that he was in possession since before Zamindari Abolition over the land in dispute hence it was not vacant and patent grounds that there was no agenda, no munadi and provisions of Rules 173 to 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules were violated were also taken. Smt. Son Kali was allotted an area of 1 bigha 10 biswas out of gaon sabha plot No. 2119/2. In para 5 of the writ petition it has been stated that the said plot was in actual cultivatory possession of late Radhey Shyam-father of the p...
Smt. Sukhdei (D) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3484
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Manas Bhargava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, advocates for the contesting respondents.2. The instant writ petition was admitted on 8.9.1995. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Supplementary-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 4 as well as on behalf of the respondent No. 7 were filed on 15.9.2008 and 24.3.2009 respectively to which supplementary counter-affidavits have been filed by the petitioner. An impleadment application was filed on behalf of Shitala Prasad, son of Sri Mathura Prasad and Parvati wife of Gurcharan but the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant made statement before the Court that he will challenge the order of the appellate court in a separate writ petition and, therefore, was rejected as not pressed on 5.5.1998.3. A rent case was instituted by predecessor of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (h...
Shambhoo Nath Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4776
ORDERShri Kant Tripathi, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA and perused the record.2. The appellant Shambhoo Nath has preferred this appeal against the order dated 10-11-2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 40 or 2006, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhadohi, whereby the learned lower court has rejected the appellant's application for recall of the orders dated 22-9-2006 and 7-10-2006.3. As per the office report, the appeal is time barred. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. well within the time but the petition was found incompetent and Hon'ble Ravindra Singh J. passed the order dated 3-2-2009 directing the appellant to convert the petition as a criminal appeal. Accordingly the appellant filed the instant criminal appeal. The record of the Criminal Misc. Case No. 2337 of 2009 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have also been annexed with this appeal....
Meer Khan and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4308
ORDERSurendra Singh, J.1. The applicant by filing present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C, has sought to quash impugned order dated 9-4-2009 passed in connection with the Criminal Misc. Case No. 7 of 2008 (State v. Meer Khan and Anr.) in ST. No. 1064 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2007 under Sections 302, 404 and 411, I.P.C of Police Station Kadarchowk, District Budaun.2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follow;Respondent No. 2, Wajih Ullah Khan, brother of the deceased (Hasib Dulhey Khan) lodged the F.I.R. under Section 304, I.P.C. at Police Station Kadarchowk, District Budaun vide Case Crime No. 4 of 2007 on 9-10-2007 at about 7.15 p.m. regarding the incident alleged to have taken place on 8-1-2007 at unknown time. The applicants were not named in the F.I.R. and their names had surfaced as participants in the crime during the course of the investigation. The Investigating Officer of the case after completion of the investigation had submitted charge sheet a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mascot (India) Tools and Forgings (P) L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR116(All)
1. The present income-tax appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal legally justified in holding that both Section 145(1) proviso and Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable in the case and whether the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the additions of Rs. 37,68,113, Rs. 5,73,832, Rs. 15,99,123 and Rs. 10,225 are sustainable in the eyes of law?2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case, is legally correct in holding that the applicability of 22 per cent, on the entire turnover disclosed by the assessee was not justified when admittedly the assessee's books of account are not reliable nor complete and the net profit could not be correctly and accurately d...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Majestic Farm House (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST530(All)
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This revision has been filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, against the judgment and order dated September 24, 2001 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 6 of 2001 preferred by M/s. Majestic Farm House (P) Ltd. against the order dated November 6, 2000 passed by the Divisional Level Committee, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, whereby the application for exemption was rejected.3. In short, the facts are that the Majestic Farm House (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, 'the company' for the sake of brevity) is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Ahmedabad. The unit is engaged in manufacture and production of ice cream of different varieties. The company is registered under the U.P. trade tax as well as Central sales tax. The company is established a new unit, which started production on January 24, 1997 and made the first sale on February 8, 1997. The unit filed an applica...
Anurag and ors. Vs. Judge Small Causes Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3429
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard Sri K.M. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Khare learned Counsel for the respondents at length and perused the record. 2. The short matrix of the present controversy relates between the members of same family who are the petitioners and respondents. In the present writ petition, the respondent No. 3 had filed a suit for ejectment for arrears of rent with regard to property in question before Small Causes Court registered as Suit No. 7/94. the petitioner No. 1 and 2 including father Krishna Kumar were defendants in the said suit. During the pendency of said suit the parties including Sri Krishna Kumar entered into arbitration agreement deciding right title and shares of the members of the family on 31st July, 1994. Arbitration agreement was admittedly registered on 12.8.1994, before the Sub-Registrar, Chandpur District Bijnore. It has not been disputed that the arbitrator had given award on 24th August, 1994 and the award includes proper...
Punjab National Bank and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3574; (2010)ILLJ345All
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Shri K.L. Grover, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Ramesh Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Verma, the learned Counsel for the respondent workman. The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, holding that the retrenchment of the workman from service was bad in law and that the petitioner was liable to reinstate the workman in service and pay the back wages at the rate at which the workman was lastly paid.2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition is, that the workman contended that he was appointed as a Peon-cum-Waterman which was of a permanent nature and that he had worked for a period of 308 days upto 31st May, 1985, and that, the management retrenched the workman without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman further contended that since the retrenchment compensation was not paid, the ce...
Mahesh Chand and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3542
Rajesh Kumar, J.1. By means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur, respondent No. 1 dated 11.6.1999 by which he has decided Revision No. 1779, order dated 24.8.1999 by which he has rejected the restoration application of the petitioners and the order dated 4.10.1999 by which he has rejected the review applications.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners' father Geeta Ram was holder of chak No. 162 and after his death, the aforesaid chak devolved between his sons, namely, Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand, the present petitioners. Sri Abdul Haq was holder of chak No. 46 and after his death, his chak devolved between his three sons, namely, Tizwan, Ishtiyaq and Zahid Hasan, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.3. It appears that in the consolidation proceeding. Abdul Haq filed the objection. The petitioners were not made parties in the consolidation proceeding inasmuch as on...