Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-04-2006
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(All)125; [2008]304ITR413(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for opinion to this Court:Whether in law and on facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the 'gross maintainable rent' should be adopted on the basis of 'annual reasonable rent' as per UP Rent Control Legislation ?2. The present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1976-77.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessee, an HUF, owns a building, which was occupied by the assessee for its own residential purposes. The value of that property was to be determined in accordance with Rule 1BB of the WT Rules. The question that arose was as to what should be the 'gross maintainable rent'. The contention of the assessee before the CWT(A) was that 'gross maintainable rent' should be taken to be the municipal valuation as determined by the Cantonment Board. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-08-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2287
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 14.12.2001 and 05.02.2001 and the Order No. 179 dated 12.09.1836 of Governor General-in-Council.2. The notice dated 14th December, 2001 has been issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India for and on behalf of the President of India and mentions that the land comprising site of Bungalow No.l, Elgin Road, bearing General Land Register (hereinafter called 'G.L.R.') Survey No. 214, New Cantonment, Allahabad measuring 3.20 acres (hereinafter called the 'premises in dispute') belongs to the President of India and is held by the petitioners on Old Grant terms as set out in the Governor General-in-Council's Order No. 179 dated 12.09.1836 under which the Government is entitled to resume the land and that the Government has decided to resume the said government land and obtain possession of the structures -standing thereon upon payment of compensation for the authorised structures as per the terms of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-29-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1814
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. by which he has cancelled the merit panel prepared by the Selection Committee on 21.10.2003 for retail outlet at Etawah City, Category Open (W), Marketing Plan 1996-98.2. The respondent authorities invited applications for allotment of retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation at various places including the city of Etawah. Large number of persons applied for the same and after scrutinizing the applications, interview was held on 20th and 21st October, 2003. A panel of three candidates was prepared wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. However, as no Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the petitioner, she filed a writ petition before this Court for issuing a direction to the respondents to execute the contract in her favour. The said writ petition has been dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-12-2006
Reported in : (2007)210CTR(All)491
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J.1. All these appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' have been filed by different appellants against the order dated 9-3-1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' in respect of five persons, namely, Sri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Sri Sanjay Kumar Jain, Smt. Reena Jain, Smt. Usha Chawla and Smt. Sushma Jain and order dated 15-3-1999 in the case of M/s. Jagdish Chand & Sons and M/s. Gurbachan Lal & Sons. In all these appeals originally when filed, the appellants have sought to raise the twelve substantial questions of law, however, by way of an application, which has been allowed vide order dated 16-11-2000, the appellants have sought leave of the court to substitute them by the following questions of law:(1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding the initiation of proceeding under Section 148 valid wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-17-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2497; [2006(108)FLR1210]; (2006)IILLJ948All
Bharati Sapru, J.1. List is revised. Learned counsel for the parties appearing in writ petition No. 15796 of 1998 are present.2. In the connected writ petition No. 14638 of 1996, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is present but the Learned counsel for the respondents who was heard earlier on 5.1.2006 and a date was fixed 17.1.2006 as the next date of hearing, did not care to appear on both the calls. 3. As the controversy involved in the writ petition No. 15796 of 1998 and the writ petition No. 14638 of 1996 being identical and the both the writ petitions are connected by the order dated 21.5.1998, the same are being heard and decided together by common order by taking the writ petition No. 15796 of' 1998 as leading case.4. The present proceedings arise out of an order dated 3.4.1998 passed by an authority under the Payment of Wages Act on an application made by the respondent No. 2, Labour Enforcement Officer, Varariasi under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-21-2006
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(All)517; [2008]306ITR162(All)
A.K. Yog and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20th December, 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. This is the third petition filed by the petitioners for challenging the orders passed under Section 127 of the Act, The first petition was filed for quashing the order dated 18th June, ,2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur under Section 127(2) of the Act transferring the cases mentioned in the order from Assessing Officers at Kanpur to the Assessing Officers at Mumbai by filing writ petition No. 1 120 of 2004 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 7.4.2005 but it was left open to the Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:On perusal of the aforementioned order we find that no reasons whatsoever has been mentioned in the order transferring th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-24-2006
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR920]
Bharati Sapru, J.1. This writ petition has been filed the petitioner Institute against an award of the Labour Court IV, Kanpur dated 27.7.1999 published on 6.9.1999 in adjudication case No. 78 of 1998. The said award of the Labour Court has reinstated the respondent No. 2 in the services of the petitioner and has also awarded to him wages for the period 10.9.1998 onwards. The order of reference reads here in below:KYA SEVAYOJKO DWARA SHRAMIK SRI ANIL KUMAR PANDKY PUTRA SRI VIJAY SHANKER PANDEY (PROJECT MECHANIC) KO OINAK 17.2.91 SE KARYA SE PRATHAK/VANCIHT KIYA ,JANA UCHIT EVAM VAIDHANIK IIAl YADI HAI TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA HITLAB/KSHATIPURTI PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI? KIS TITHI EVAM ANYA KIS VIVRAN KE SATH.2. The facts of the case are that the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') is a body corporate which is established under the provisions of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961. The petitioner is thus constituted as a 'statutory body und...
Tag this Judgment!