Allahabad Court August 2009 Judgments
Gopal Krishna Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC567
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner. Despite the case having been called in revised list, none has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 though the names of Sri Saurabh Singh and Sri K.R. Sirohi are shown in the cause list as counsels for the respondents. Learned standing counsel representing respondent No. 1 is present.2. The grievance of petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 was working in the cadre of Stenographer in District Judgeship, Deoria and, therefore, could not have been promoted either as Sadar Munsarim or as Senior Administrative Officer since the said posts were available for clerical staff only and in absence of suitable clerical staff, the persons working on the post of Stenographer could have been considered for such promotion but any such promotion could not be made without prior approval of the High Court. It is submitted that a selection committee was constituted by District Judge for regular promotion on ...
Tag this Judgment!C.i.T. Vs. Pursottam Sa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: [2009]318ITR286(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this Court.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80CCA and 80CCB of the Income Tax Act?2. The Reference relate to the Assessment Year 1992-93. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:3. The assessee had made an investment of Rs. 40,000/- in National Savings Scheme and another investment of Rs. 10,000/- in Unit Trust of India Magnum. His claim for deduction under Sub-section 80CCA and 80CCB on the above investments was rejected by the A.O. vide his order dated 24.02.1993 on the ground that the investment had not come out of income chargeable to tax. The case of the assessee before the Id. C.I.T.(A) was that during the year he had given ...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Kamal Savita (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC281
Ran Vijai Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award correct marks in drawing subject of High School Examination, 2009.2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner has appeared in High School Examination, 2009 with Roll No. 1819417 conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. The petitioner's subjects were Hindi, English, Maths, Social Science, Science and Drawing. The petitioner has been awarded following marks in the above-mentioned subjects:Subjects Max. Marks Obtained Total marks GrandMarks obtained TotalHindi 100 1/41 2/41 082 411English 100 1/42 2/37 079 FailedMaths 100 1/44 2/46 090Science 100 1/26 2/19, 0763/31So. Science 100 1/29 2/43 072 CatM.S.P.E.-ADrawing 100 1/12 012 F3. Aggrieved by the marks of Drawing paper, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the allegation that her answer-book of Drawing paper has been changed somewhere and that is why less marks have been awarded. This C...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gonda Transport and Forwarding Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: [2009]318ITR433(All)
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 Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the first appellate authority cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under Section 271B of the Act on the ground that no penalty under the said section is exigible if the audit report is obtained within the 'specified date' though furnished along with the return filed under Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1991-92.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:4. In terms of Section 44AB of the Act the assessee was required to get his accounts audited and to obtain audit report before October 31, 1991. The audit report was obtained on October 24, 1991, but the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arun Kumar Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR372(All)
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 Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 42,242 imposed under Section 271B of the Act on the ground that no penalty under the said Section is exigible if the audit report is obtained within the specified time, though not furnished within time allowed for filing of the return under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1990-91.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:4. The assessee was required to get his accounts audited and obtain the audit report under Section 44AB of the Act before October 31, 1990. The assessee got his accounts audited and obtained the report before this date. However, the Assessin...
Tag this Judgment!Sheetla Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4181
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The father of the petitioner was the owner of various plots, measuring approximately 27,292 sq. mtrs., which is situate in village Lahartara, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi, which was being used for agricultural purposes. The petitioner's father indicated his intention to develop the land as a residential colony, and consequently, applied before the Varanasi Development Authority under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the development of the land in question. The Authority, by its order dated 3rd December, 1987, granted permission to develop the land and sanctioned a lay out plan. On 9th of June, 1988, an agreement was executed between the petitioner, his father, and other brothers with the Varanasi Development Authority in which it was agreed that the owners would carry out the development of the lay out plan in accordance with the approved lay out of the area, standards and s...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Kapoor Vs. Sanjay and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC474
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The present revision is at the instance of a defendant of J.S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1981 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th of January, 1991 passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut whereby the said suit for ejectment of the defendant who is applicant herein from the three shops has been decreed. The decree for recovery of Rs. 13,600 as arrears of rent for the period 23.1.1978 to 22.11.1980 and for mesne profit has also been passed. The claim for pendente lite and future mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 400 per month has also been decreed subject to the payment of Court fees on the execution side.2. The aforestated suit was instituted by four plaintiffs for ejectment of the defendant applicant from three shops situate in the property No. 194, Delhi Road, Meerut on the allegations that the defendant is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400 and is in arrears of rent from 1st of December, 1975 and has failed to pay the rent in spite of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrika Prasad and ors. Vs. Settlement Officer Consolidation and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC486
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. The prayer in this writ petition is that writ of mandamus may be issued 'commanding respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to ensure the compliance of the orders dated 11.6.2008 and 10.7.2009 passed by the (sic S.O.C. (new unit) Jaunpur) and respondents may be restrained from raising any construction over the bhoomidhari plots of the petitioners, i.e., plot Nos. 101 and 110 situate at village Pilkhini, Pargana Saremu, Tehsil Sadar, district Jaunpur.' Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are C.O. (Consolidation Officer) Kirtapur-I, district Jaunpur, C.O., Dharmapur district Jaunpur and Station Officer Police Station, Gaura, Badshahpur, district Jaunpur. Order dated 11.6.2008 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It has been passed by S.O.C, Jaunpur. At the top of the order case number is mentioned as 889 under Section 45A. Names of the parties are not given. It is a direction to C.O. It is stated in the said order that Chandrika Prasad and others (pe...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Meena and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3641
Amitava Lala, J.1. This appeal is arising out of judgment and order dated 21.3.2009 passed by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura. The awarded amount of compensation is Rs. 12,45,435 alongwith interest to be paid by the insurance company to the claimants.2. On 25.12.2007 at about 5.00 a.m. the deceased was travelling on Delhi-Mathura National Highway No. 2 by his Indica Car while he met with an accident by Tata 709 No. U.P. 86 9598 coming from the opposite direction. Deceased suffered injuries and later on expired. Allegation of rash and negligent driving was made. First information report was lodged. Enquiry was made. Site plan was prepared by the police. Charge-sheet was filed against the driver. The claimants are wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased. At the time of death the deceased was 44 years of age. Income-tax return of the deceased was considered by the Tribunal. Multiplier of 15 has been used to come to an appropriate determination of compensation....
Tag this Judgment!Doctors X-ray and Pathology Institute P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Director of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(All)546; [2009]318ITR125(All); [2010]186TAXMAN186(All)
S.K. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:(i) Issue a writ, order or direction and declare that the search conducted against the petitioners on September 14, 2002, as illegal and in contravention of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and to quash the consequential block assessment notices dated April 29, 2003, and May 21, 2003 (annexure 5).2. The brief facts as enumerated in the writ petition are as follows:Petitioner No. 1 is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. Under the objects of the company/petitioner No. 1 as incorporated in its memorandum of association, works in the field of medical diagnostics by providing facilities of x-ray, pathology and ultrasound images. Dr. H.R. Agarwal, Dr. Sita Ram Agarwal, Dr. K.R. Agarwal and Dr. Mrs. Chitralekha Agarwal are on the board of direc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »