Allahabad Court April 2014 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
1. Heard Sri Dhananjai Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mukesh Jain, along with Sri R. S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal, under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, relating to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, arises from the order of the Tribunal, dated May 19, 1990, which raises the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Assessing Officer to frame a single assessment for the entire period from January 1, 1987, to March 31, 1989 ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified on the facts of the case in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who observed the order, passed under section 3(4) of Income-tax Act, 1961, on December 7, 1987, remained legally valid and did not become non est as a result of the amendment introduced in section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganga Corporation Asbestos (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri RK Upadhayay, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Sri Ashish Bansal appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under section 260 (A) of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred to as "the Act") relating to the assessment year 1988-89 raising the following substantial questions of law: "(1) whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the business of the assessee remained the same, because the criterion is not the nature of business but the unit of control and common management? (2) whether in view of the proviso to clause (i) of sub section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim of set off of past losses against the income of the current assessment year 1988-89?" 3. Brief facts of the case are that for the assessment year in dispute, the respondent assessee (herein after referred to as "the assessee") filed the return sho...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mohd. Fazal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2014
1. This writ petition, which has been filed in the public interest, seeks two reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure the restriction on publication and dissemination of results of Opinion and Exit Polls imposed by Section 126-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951 during the current general election of 2014 from the beginning of the hours fixed for poll on the first day of poll and continue till half an hour after closing of the poll in all the States and Union Territories; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Television Channels, Newspaper and any other media from releasing the results of exit and opinion poll, during voting for 2014 general election from the beginning of the hours fixed for poll on the first day of poll and continue till half an hour after closing of the poll in all the States and Union Territories." 2. Section 126-A and Section 126-B of the Represen...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General Allahabad High Court Allahabad a ...
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.09.2013 passed by District Judge rejecting application for compassionate appointment. 2. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for respondents. 3. Petitioner claims appointment on the death of his father a Class-IV employee in the judgeship of Sitapur. Petitioner's mother had also moved an application before District Judge, Sitapur stating that her son Prakash Agarwal (present petitioner) may be given compassionate appointment as there is no other source of livelihood. 4. It appears that on above application, District Judge constituted a Committee which sought information vide order dated 25.09.2013 regarding financial status of employee. This information was to be furnished within a week. 5. Submission is that District Judge vide order dated 28.09.2013 rejected the petitioner's application without giving effective opportunity, consequently, order cannot be sustained...
Tag this Judgment!ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharm Pal and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The instant appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, 1923 / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Firozabad, having its camp at Agra, in W.C.A. No. 70 of 2010 by which the application of the appellant, under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., for setting aside an ex parte order dated 14.02.2013 has been rejected. It appears that against the order impugned, the appellant had earlier filed Writ C No. 20502 of 2014, which was dismissed on ground that against rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. The admitted position is that the claimant -respondent filed a claim before the Commissioner under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said Act was enacted to provide for the paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Swarup Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Heard Sri Hans Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, and Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk / Cashier in Hamirpur District Co-operative Bank Limited, District Mahoba, on 16.05.1972. In paragraph 4, it is stated that he was promoted to the post of Junior Branch Manager w.e.f. 24.01.1992. In paragraph 5, it is stated that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2010 and thus he was retired from service. Undisputedly the service condition of the petitioner was governed by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, which also contains the provisions with regard to Payment of Gratuity. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should be paid gratuity as per provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Sri Hans Pratap Si...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax - II, Kanpur Vs. N.K. Laminates (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ("Act") arising from the order of the Tribunal dated 21.7.2004 in which following questions have been raised: "1 -Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law not upholding the order of the assessing officer wherein the addition on account of under invoiced sales of Kattha amounting to Rs.1,24,300/- was made on the basis of material in the shape of loose papers found and seized by the department at the time of search? 2 -Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by A.O. on account of unexplained investment in plant and machinery and factory building amounting to Rs.1,01,345/- and Rs.3,77,982/- respectively, observing that no documents in this regard was found during the course of search ignoring the finding and observation of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Rani Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.07.2000 passed by Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Shahjahanpur determining deficiency of stamp of Rs. 1,35,000/- on the instrument of sale executed by petitioner in respect of property in dispute, whereagainst petitioner's revision has also been dismissed by Commissioner, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly vide order dated 06.06.2001. 3. It is contended that the house in question was a double story building while only ground floor was mentioned in sale deed and instead of determining total value of property in dispute by adding value of second floor, the Additional Collector on conjectures and surmises has held that total rental value of house may be Rs. 6,500/- and the rate of land must be determined treating it to be Rs. 2000/ per square meter, on the basis of circle rate, applicable to Mohalla Civil Lin...
Tag this Judgment!Edal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and have perused the judgment of the Trial Court, by which Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hathras, has acquitted the accused respondents under section 302 I.P.C., section 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act and Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. etc., in S.T. Nos. 188 of 2010 and 189 of 2010 by the judgment dated 1.3.2014. The prosecution allegation in the F.I.R. lodged by Udal Singh, P.W. 1, father of the deceased Babboo was that some dancers had come in connection with the marriage of the daughter of Babboo Nat with the son of Saudan Nat on 18.3.22010. At about 9 p.m., the informant Udal, his son Babloo (the deceased) and his uncle (Edal Singh), (the appellant), Brijendra Singh, Om Prakash and others were seeing the "rangsala. "The accused respondents Yogesh, Shiv Kumar and Triloki Pradhan their father arrived at the spot. At that time, the three accused persons fired with country made pistols which struck the neck of t...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
1. On 11 February 2011, a Division Bench of this Court made a reference to the Full Bench of the following questions: (1) Whether the experience required in the proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is only a bar of authorization to inspect the manufacture of substances, or is an essential qualification under Rule 49 for direct appointment as Drug Inspector under Rule 5 (4) of the U.P. State Drug Control Gazetted Officers' Service Rules, 1995. (2) Whether the Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Zunab Ali and Ors.1 has been correctly decided. 2. This reference requires an interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and of Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 3. For direct recruitment of Drug Inspectors under the U.P. State Drug Control Gazetted Officers' Service Rules, 1995, the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement dated 10 October 2009 were a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »