Allahabad Court September 2014 Judgments
Surendra Vs. State of U.P. Thru' Chief Secretary, U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by respondent No. 2 (annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) by which the department has rejected the claim of the petitioner for his regularization and further a direction may be issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on the class-IV post on which he was working and pay him salary. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner was engaged as daily wager on 18.10.1988 as class-IV employee under the respondent No. 3 and was discharging his duties accordingly till 27.11.2006. In exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the State Government has framed U.P. Regularization of Daily wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Verma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on: Sep-23-2014
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The reference to the Full Bench The reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned upon two orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court. By the first of those orders, the following question was referred for consideration: "Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is an interlocutory order and the remedy of a revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397." Subsequently, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while noticing the above reference, referred two additional questions for consideration by a larger Bench: "(1) Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code rejecting an application for a direction to the police to register and investigate, is revisable under Section 397; and (2) If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether in a revision filed against an order rejecting an application under Section 156 (3), the prospective accused is also a...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Ram Bhagwan Das Mandi Ghanshyamganj Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2014
Dr. Satish Chandra, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 13.06.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.160/Del/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. On 12.09.2005, a Co-ordinate Bench has admitted the appeal by passing the following order: " The substantial question of law arising in the present Income Tax Appeal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is that whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) dated 8.10.2004 in Appeal No. 612/03/04 on the ground that the assessee failed to bring on record the material to draw inference with regard to cash flow statements when no such plea was taken or raised or pressed on behalf of the Department before Assessing Officer or in the appeal itself and the appellant had no opportunity to file the relevant account books to prove the same and whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gorakhpur Vs. Abdul Haseeb, Prop. M.S.J.B. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The assessee is engaged in the business of Banarasi sarees on commission basis. For the assessment year 1999-00, the assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs.2,20,920/- along with audited profit and loss account, capital account and balance sheet. In this case, a survey under Section 133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. While the case was being processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the case was selected for scrutiny. The books of accounts that was produced were impounded under Section 141(3) of the Act. 2. It transpires that in the survey, certain loose papers were found and since the same was not produced during the course of assessment proceedings, the books of accounts was rejected and a turnover of Rs.2,50,00,000/- was estimated by applying a percentage of commission of 1.75%. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the balance sheet noticed that the assessee had ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Agarwal HUF Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ghaziabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The appellant is an HUF carrying on the business of selling of assets of old factory purchased through auction . For the assessment year 2005-06 the appellant filed his return showing an income of Rs.2,51,496/-. The case was selected under scrutiny and after issuance of a notice and considering the reply of the appellant the assessing officer invoked the provision of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and made an addition of Rs.76,28,000/- and assessed the income at Rs.81,83,810/-. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 246-A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on various grounds and also submitted an application under Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Rules seeking leave to file additional evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) rejected the request of the appellant for additional evidence holding that there was no justifiable reasons for not submitting such evidence before...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›