Allahabad Court July 2014 Judgments
Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur Nagar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2014
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the notice dated 23rd January, 2001 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of publishing a Hindi newspaper Dainik Jagran from various places. For the assessment year 1997-98, the return of income was initially processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, the return was picked up for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with a detailed questionnaire covering various issues was served upon the assessee. Once such query based in the questionnaire was with regard to the justification of the valuation of the purchase consideration on copyright under the copyright purchase agreement dated 25th January, 1997 where the petitioner company had acquired the copyright of the hindi newspaper "Dainik Jagran" from the owner of the copyright, na...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kanpur Vs. Raj Kumar Arora
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. For the assessment year 2000-01, the assessee filed the regular return of income on 29.08.2000 showing a total income of Rs. 14,03,630/-. In the regular return of income, the assessee has showed income from salary from M/s Som Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee himself claimed to be a Director and also showed rental income, interest income on FDRs, Saving Bank Accounts, UTI Bonds and minor children income. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a total income of Rs. 16,15,250/-. 2. A search and seizure operation was carried out on 01.09.2005. During the course of search and seizure operation, incriminating documents along with cash, jewellery and other valuables were found and seized. Consequent to the search, jurisdiction of the assessee was centralized to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur under Section 127 of the Act. Notice under Section 153A of the Act was issu...
Tag this Judgment!Neeraj Janhitkari Gramin Sewa Sansthan Vs. Chief Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. The Writ Petition Seeks To Impugn The Legality Of An Order Passed By The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ghaziabad On 10/11 October 2013 Denying To The Petitioner An Exemption Under Section 10 (23C) (Vi) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Petitioner Is Stated To Have Established An Educational Institution Called Ch. Natthu Singh Yadav Mahavidyalaya In A Rural Segment Situated At Dihuli In Barnahal, District Mainpuri. After Obtaining The Recognition Of The National Council For Teacher Education (NCTE) For Running The B Ed Degree Course, Affiliation Was Obtained From The Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra. Apart From The B Ed Course, The Institution Imparts Education Leading To The Conferment Of B A, B Sc and M Sc Degrees. The First Academic Session Commenced In 2004 - 05. Since Receipts Exceeded The Threshold Limit Of Rupees One Crore, An Application Under Section 10 (23C) (Vi) Was Filed Before The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Ghaziabad On 30 September 2009. The Application ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Kanpur Vs. Mirza International Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
1. The revenue is in appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7 January 2014. The Assessment Year to which the appeal relates is 2008-09. 2. Two questions of law have been formulated by the Revenue in support of the appeal which are as follows: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) without considering the material brought on record by the Transfer Pricing Officer while determining the Arm's length Price? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in giving direction to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance?" 3. The assessee has an associate company namely M/s. Mirza U.K. Ltd. which is an 'associated enterprise' within the meaning of section 92A. The total value of the export sales by the assessee to the associated ente...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Kanpur Vs. Jagan and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. We have heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, the learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the assessee. 2. All the appeal raise the same issue, and for facility, the facts in the appeal for the assessment year 1985-86 is taken into consideration. 3. For the assessment year 1985-86, an assessment order under Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed. The operative portion of the order of the Assessing Officer is extracted hereunder: "Assessed on total income of Rs. 6,10,850/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(1)(a), 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271A, 273(2)(b) are initiated. Issue notice of demand and challan and penalty notices." 4. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had not issued any direction for charging interest under Section 139(8) and Section 215 of the Act. Pursuant to the said assessment order, a notice of demand was issued under Section 156 of the Act demanding interest under the afore...
Tag this Judgment!Brindaban Behari Lal Srivastava and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Other ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
1. We have heard Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava for the petitioners. Learned standing counsel appears for State respondents. 2. The petitioner No.1 was appointed as Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were appointed as Members of the Committee vide Notification No.3013/60-1-2004-1/13(102)/01, issued at Lucknow dated 10.11.2004, by which Governor of the State of U.P. constituted the Committees under Section 29 of theJuvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 for a period of three years. The petitioners completed their first term of three years on 09.11.2007. It is stated that they were allowed to continue, as their term could be extended for a maximum period of two terms. The State Government did not issue any order, extending the period for their second term. 3. By a letter dated 01.05.2008, the Director, Mahila Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow wrote to the District Magistrates - Ghazipur, Lalitpur, Lucknow, Firozabad, Shajahanpur, Deoria, Azamgarh, Meeru...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Dubey Vs. Presiding Officer, Cen.Govt. Indus. Dispute and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
Suneet Kumar, J. The present writ petition has been preferred by the workman against the award dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur in I.D No.38 of 2008 (Shri Pramod Kumar Dubey versus The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Kanpur). Central Government on 2.6.2008 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the tribunal: "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Kanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar Dubey (Guard) with effect from 12.6.2004 is just fair and legal. To what relief is the workman concerned is entitled?" The petitioner-workman was engaged as a guard by the State Bank of India, Kanpur on 16.9.2003 and worked till 11.6.2004 and was removed by oral order on 12.6.2004 in violation of Section 25F, without reason, notice or retrenchment compensation; had completed 270 days. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with full back wages and consequential benefits. Respondent ba...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›