Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1996All342
ORDER1. Leave is granted on the prayer of Shri B. D. Mandhyan. Learned counsel for the petitioner to correct the cause, title so as to convert the petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Facts as emerging from this case are that the respondent No. 3 as plaintiff instituted a suit being suit No. 310 of 1990 in the Court of learned Munsif (City) Saharanpur, on 29th September, 1990 against the Respondent No. 4 and 5 and the petitioner herein as defendant No. 1,2 & 3 respectively for injunction restraining the defendant No. I & 2 (respondent No. 4 & 5) from transfering their share in the suit property and delivering possession to the defendant No. 3 (petitioner herein) without effecting any partition in respect of the family dwelling house being suit property therein. Admittedly plaintiff and the defendant No. I & 2 are co-sharers in respect of the family dwelling house being the suit property and the defendant No. 3 is a stranger.3. In connection with the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1996All375
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. A Divisional Bench has referred for reconsideration, a decision of earlier Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1994 (Kamla Palace v. Stale of U. P.) decided on 10th July, 1995, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in : [1995]1SCR256 (State of Bihar v. Sachidanand Kumar Prasad Sinha). In Kamla Palace (supra) this Court held proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment & Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Government Orders issued thereunder as ultra vires.2. Short facts are, Uttar Pradesh Legislature by way of Uttar Pradesh Entertainment & Betting Tax (Amendment) Act, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 1992), published on 11th April, 1992, introduced amendment in Section 3-A of the Act, which authorised the proprietor of a Cinema to realise an extra charge of twenty-five paise per ticket for admission to be utilised for maintenance of the cinema premises. But by proviso excluded the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1998]229ITR23(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges (i) a Notification No. 6551 F. No. 203/23/957, dated January 2, 1986, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India withdrawing the approval of the petitioner for the purpose of Sections 35(1)(ii) and 10(21) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with retrospective effect from January 17, 1980 ; (ii) notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Faizabad, respondent No. 4, under Sections 148 and 139(2) of the Act; (iii) order dated July 21, 1986, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act setting aside the petitioner's assessment for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessments after making proper enquiries, and (iv) notice issued by the Income-tax Officer 11(3), Kanpur, respondent No. 5, asking for certain information in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84. A writ of prohibiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC594
B.M. Lal, B. Kumar and M. Katju, JJ.1. For the reasons recorded separately this court unanimously holds that the impugned Presidential Proclamation dated 17-10-1996 reimposing Presidential Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India in the State of Utter Pradesh subsequently approved by the Parliament is unconstitutional, issued in colourable excercise of powers and is based on wholly irrelevant and extraneous grounds and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand, consequently the same is hereby quashed.2. However, to avoid any constitutional dead-lock or crisis resultant to the quashing of aforesaid Proclamation, we direct, by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, that this judgment shall come into operation with effect from 26-12-1996.B.M. Lal, J.1. The judgment delivered in Writ Petition Mo. 3129 (MB) of 1996, shall govern disposal of all the six writ petitions filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the Proclamation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)59TTJ(All)99
ORDERV. K. SINHA, A.M. :This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) confirming imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,324 under s. 271B of the Act for delay in obtaining and filing an audit report under s. 44AB of the Act.2. The relevant facts are that the turnover exceeded Rs. 40 lacs and, therefore, the accounts were required to be audited under s. 44AB of the Act before the specified date and report obtained by that date. The specified date for the relevant year was 31st July, 1988 and audit report dt. 31st July, 1988 was obtained, but it was filed along with the return of income on 31st August, 1989.3. There was no compliance to a notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 271B of the Act. The AO, therefore, held that a default had been committed and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,324.4. It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the accounts had been audited in time on 31st July, 1988, but return could not be filed along with the report as asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)59TTJ(All)155
ORDERV. K. SINHA, A.M. :These three appeals filed by the assessee are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.ITA No. 64 All/19962. This is the main appeal and the dispute relates to an order under s. 154 of the Act, dt. 16th January, 1995, passed by the AO withdrawing interest under s. 244(1A) of the Act on refund allowed to the assessee by an earlier order dt. 17th March, 1994, passed by the AO giving effect to an order under s. 254 passed by the Tribunal. The order under s. 154 resulted from a series of earlier orders. A synopsis of the relevant dates and orders is given below in chronological order for the sake of convenience :Sl. No.DateRemarks1.31-7-1974Time-limit for filing a return under s. 139(1) of the Act.2.7-11-1974Extension allowed by the AO for filing the return under proviso to s. 139(1) of the Act on an application in Form No. 6 filed by the assessees.3.6-12-1974Return filed by the assessee under s. 139(4) of the Act.4.23-2-1977Revised return fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC49; (1997)3UPLBEC1702
S.R. Singh, J.1. Petitioner was commissioned by the President of India in the Rank of 2nd Lieutenant in the Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Corps and was appointed as such in Short Service Commission (S.S.C. for brief), initially on contract for a period of five years on March 8, 1986. The present petition has been filed for the relief of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for grant of permanent commission de novo on or before 30th April, 1994 and also for issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, summoning the records of his A.C.R. and those of other officers of this batch, who were allegedly offered crucial favour of being insidiously granted permanent commission and quashing the selection process including Annexure 4, by which the petitioner's statutory complaint dated 27.8.1991 met the fate of rejection and Annexure 6, which is the record of interview in respect of the petitioner, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC593; (1998)1UPLBEC587
O.P. Garg, J.1. More often than not, this Court is faced with the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which an unpalatable. Irritating and perturbing prayer is made that the subordinate courts be commanded by means of writ of mandamus to proceed with, conclude and decide the long pending suits, appeals, revisions or other civil proceedings, including execution applications, etc., expeditiously or/and within the time to be phased by this Court. As exemplars, the following four writ petitions have been culled out to highlight the malady about the law's delays :1. Civil Misc. Writ No. 25505 of 1997--The petitioners filed Suit No. 204 of 1958 for the relief of permanent injunction which was decided in terms of compromise on 8.2.1960. The Judgment debtor-defendants who are the respondents in the writ petition violated the terms of the compromise. The petitioner-decree holders had to file another Suit No. 69 of 1969 which was decreed on 20.7.1971. The appeal preferred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2000)66TTJ(All)508
ORDERLS. VERMA, J.M.:In this appeal the assessee has objected to the assessment order for block period passed by the assessing officer under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) and has listed as many as 21 grounds.1.1. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant/assessee also sought permission, as per letter dt. 15th Feb., 1999, for admission of two additional grounds. But since the counsel for the assessee pleaded for withdrawal of the additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal, the same are dismissed as such.2. As far as the other grounds are concerned, we have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned departmental Representative and proceed to decide the various issues as underL Ground Nos. (i) to (v) :3. These grounds are against the determination of appellant's undisclosed 'income of Rs. 4,05,840 on the basis of seized documents marked as Annexure A- 1.3.1. Before divulging to the arguments advanced by the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2000)67TTJ(All)247
ORDERI.S. Verma, J. M.This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) on various grounds.Hearing of this appeal has been fixed on priority basis as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 16-3-1999.2. In the grounds of appeal enclosed along with the memorandum of appeal the assessee has listed as many as 9 grounds but at the time of hearing the assessee's learned counsel Shri S.K. Garg, withdrew Ground No. 3.1 and 3.4 which are dismissed as withdrawn.3. Ground Nos. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4In these grounds the assessee has objected to the validity of the notice dated 12-12-1996, issued as required by the provisions of section 158BC of the Act.3.1. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Addl. standing counsel.3.2. The counsel for the assessee first of all submitted that th...
Tag this Judgment!