Court : Allahabad
1. THIS income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) filed by the assessee appellant arise out of the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal) relating to assessment year 1997-98 by which the appeal filed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Muzaffarnagar was partly allowed and while setting aside the order of the CIT (A), Muzaffarnagar dated 20.5.2000 deleting the capital gain of Rs.4,77,14,279/- from the total income of the assesses-appellant, as computed by the A.O. The A.O. was made free to tax it, in the order in which the transfer of shares took place in accordance with law. 2. THIS appeal was admitted by the Court on 17.1.2005 on the questions of law as follows:- "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that capital gains on transfer of shares were liable to tax during the previous year relevant to assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. THIS Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 21.04.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ghaziabad in Case Crime No.422/1998 of Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., allowing application of the complainant purported to be under Section 323 Cr.P.C. and thereby committing the case to the Court of Special Judge, under the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to 'the SC/ST Act'). 2. THE factual matrix of the case is that on 24.04.1998 at about 18.30 O'clock, there was a clash between the complainant's side and the revisionist's side over an issue of throwing debris of complainant's house on the public lane. It is said to be a case of free-fight, wherein both the sides received injuries. THE Police registered F.I.Rs. on the basis of cross version and after concluding investigation, the Investiga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. WITH the change of Government, the creation of new districts has become a routine feature in the State of Uttar Pradesh that too, without adverting to financial viability and necessity. Ordinarily, decisions are political to perpetuate legacy of political parties. 2. SIMILAR is the case in hand referred by the Division Bench of this Court relating to constitution of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar (in short CSM Nagar). 3. On account of conflicting judgment with regard to right of State Government to create districts, a Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J. and Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.), has framed three (3) questions and referred the same to the Larger Bench. In terms thereof, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted the present Bench. The questions referred by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.10159 (M/B) of 2010 and three other connected writ petitions, are as under: (i) Whether the issuance of n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. THIS Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad dated 30.6.2000 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1037 (Alld)/1998, for the assessment year 1994-95. 2. WE have heard Shri S.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the assessee-appellant. Shri R.K. Upadhyay appears for the Income Tax Department. The appellant is a HUF composed of Mr. Anirban Nath and his mother Mrs. Sushmita Nath. There is another HUF composed of one Mr. Anirdam Nath and his mother Sushmita Nath. The Anirban Nath Sushmita (HUF)-the assessee-appellant was in need of money to apply for allotment of shares of two companies M/s Trimurti Fertiliser Ltd and Crown Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. It approached Arindam Nath Sushmita HUF, and Arinban Nath (individual) for giving loan of Rs. 6, 45, 000/- and Rs. 5, 60, 000/- respectively. The loans were advanced and the money was paid by the creditors to the companies directly. There was no term f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. WE have heard Shri W.H. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri J.H. Khan and Shri Gulrez Khan for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Vivek Varma appears for Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. 2. IN Writ Tax No. 1522 of 2011 M/s Shakti Advertising and four others have prayed for quashing the demand notices dated 4.10.2011 (Annexure nos. 7, 8 and 9) issued by the Tax Superintendent (Advertisement), Nagar Nigam, Varanasi raising a demand of Rs. 24, 59, 923/- towards site rent, advertisement tax and renewal charges from M/s Shakti Advertising-petitioner no. 1; Rs.17, 18, 123/- from M/s Allora Outdoor-petitioner no.2; and Rs.1, 36, 376.50 from M/s Prisma Advertiser-petitioner no. 3. IN the impugned orders the petitioners were also required to give the list of the private site hoardings. In Writ Tax No. 1528 of 2011 M/s Selvel Media Services Private Limited and 10 others have prayed for quashing the notices dated 4.10.2011 issued by the Tax Superintenden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Amitava Lala, J. 1. THE brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that on 20th December, 2010 the petitioner was duly elected as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Devkali, District Ghazipur. Oath of the office was administered to the petitioner on 18th March, 2011 and since then the petitioner has been regularly discharging duties of the office of Pramukh and has never been found guilty of any dereliction of duty and functions of the office as contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter in short called as the "Act"). However, on account of political rivalry, notice/proposal for bringing no confidence motion against the petitioner, which was allegedly signed by 61 members out of 96 members of the Kshettra Panchayat Devkali, has been served upon the respondent no. 2 i.e. the District Magistrate, Ghazipur. THE District Magistrate, Ghazipur, on the basis of aforesaid proposal, issued the notice/order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. List revised. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.4.2006 (annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar by which the petitioner was terminated by the Committee of Management after approval of the order by the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 12.4.2006. 3. The brief facts of the present case is that Gandhi Smarak Vidhayalaya was established in the year 1969, which was managed by the Society Gandhi Smarak, Vidhayalaya Sanstha. The society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The institution was running Junior High School, which was recognized by the education department w.e.f. 1.7.1972 and after the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 was enforced in state of U.P. The said institution was governed by the provision of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Surendra Kumar, J. 1. Six accused persons namely, Kalloo (appellant No. 1), Jagdish (appellant No.2), Sheo Narain alias Baredi (appellant No. 3), Lala Ram (appellant No.4), Moti Lal (appellant No. 5) and Bhagwat (appellant No. 6), preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 17.5.1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 1981-State Vs. Kalloo and five others, by which all the six accused persons (appellants herein) were convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Four appellants namely, Kalloo, Jagdish, Sheo Narain and Lala Ram were also convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to four years Rigorous Imprisonment thereunder, and two years Rigorous Imprisonment on being convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. Two accused persons namely, Bhagwat and Moti Lal were also convicted unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Both these writ petitions involve similar questions of fact and law and, therefore, as agreed and requested by learned counsel for the parties have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Respective parties are represented by Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, Sri S.M.G. Asghar, Sri Utpal Chatterjee and Sri N.L. Pandey, Advocates and learned Standing Counsel. 3. The dispute has a chequered history which is evident from the fact that between the parties there has been more than a dozen of writ petitions in the last more than a decade. To appreciate real bone of contention giving rise to the present writ petitions, it would be appropriate to have a bird eye view of the relevant facts. 4. There is a society named, Church City Junior High School Shiksha Samiti, Sadar, Andarkot Thatherwara, Meerut, District Meerut (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") which was formed in 1997. The initial office bearers of committee of managemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed under Section 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (in short VAT Act) after remand of the matter by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The impugned assessment order imposing tax has been assailed pointing out the jurisdictional error claiming transaction to be Inter-State sales. 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved and the same assessment order has been challenged, hence with the consent of the parties' counsel, arguments were heard and now decided by common judgment. Writ petition No. 6281 of 2010 is treated as leading writ petition to adjudicate the controversy. 3. Keeping in view lengthy argument advanced by the parties' counsel, we are adjudicating the dispute under the following heads: (I) Facts (II) Maintainability of Writ Petition (III) Constitutional and...
Tag this Judgment!