Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)2UPLBEC1327
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These groups of Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the common questions of law and facts are involved and since all these writ petitions raises common questions, they are being heard together and are decided by the common judgment. Learned Counsel argued treating Writ Petition No. 37124 of 2001 to be leading writ petition in which counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. All the learned Counsel for petitioner a well as learned Standing Counsel have made the statement that no further affidavits are required in each writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-'(A) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call the record of the case and advertisement dated 14.8.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and quash the advertisement dated 14.8.2001 to the exten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1939All177
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The suit was for recovery of Rupees 4096-9-9 on the foot of a promissory note dated 29th December 1930 which, was alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff who is his brother in renewal of an earlier promissory note dated 27th December 1929. The defendant admitted execution but pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action Inasmuch as the money had been advanced not by the plaintiff, but by the mother of the parties Mt. Chhabraji in the plaintiff's name and that 21/2 years before the suit Mt. Chhabraji had remitted the debt and had handed over the promissory note and the receipt to the defendant, but it had somehow or other fallen into the possession of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the real owner of the promissory note in suit and that there was no remission of the debt as alleged by the defendant. The plea o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1926All439
1. The suit of the plaintiff Narain Prasad was dismissed by the trial Court of the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was barred by the principle of res judicata. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge disagreed with this finding and remanded the suit for trial on the merits. This appeal is filed from the order of remand.2. One Chhotey Lal had two sons and the widow of one of them, Mt. Ganeshi by name, made certain transfers in favour of the defendant of this suit, Raj Bahadur. Mt. Ganeshi had a daughter, Mt. Katori, who was an heir to the property on the death of her mother, the lifeholder. She instituted a suit in 1917 (Suit No. 116 of 1917) for a declaration that the transfers were beyond the power of a Hindu widow and sought a declaration that they were not binding on her. During the pendency of the suit she died on 12th November 1917. The plaintiff of this suit, Narain Prasad, applied to the Court to be brought on the record as representative in interest of Mt. Kator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 94Ind.Cas.157
1. The suit of the plaintiff Narain Prasad was dismissed by the Trial Court of the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was barred by the principle of res judicata. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge disagreed with this finding and remanded the suit for trial on the merits. This appeal is filed from the order of remand. One Chhotey Lal had two sons and the widow of one of them Musammat Ganeshi by name made certain transfers in favour of the defendant of this suit Raj Bahadur. Musammat Ganeshi had a daughter Musammat Katori who was an heir to the property on the death of her mother the life holder. She instituted a suit in 1917 (Suit No. 117 of 1917) for a declaration that the transfers were beyond the power of a Hindu widow and sought a declaration that they were not binding on her. During the pendency of the suit she died on the 12th November 1917. The plaintiff of this suit Narain Prasad applied to the Court to be brought on the record as representative in interest of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The present appeal relates to the assessment year 2003-04. The appellant took a loan of Rs.21.20 lacs from a Company known as Sarnath Finance Limited, in which the appellant is a share holder to the extent of 15%. In assessment proceedings the appellant was required to explain as to why the loans and advances taken from Sarnath Finance Ltd. should not be treated as a deemed dividend in view of the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The assessing authority, after considering the explanation held, that the alleged loan taken by the appellant was a deemed dividend and, therefore an income from other sources. The assessing authority held that the Finance Company, namely, Sarnath Finance Limited was mainly engaged in advancing hire purchase of transport vehicle and that the said Finance Company had only made 10.79% investment in loans and advances which cannot be termed as a substantial part of business of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Oral Judgment: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ. The present reference to a bench of three Judges is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (Stamp Act). The questions which have been referred to this Full Bench for determination by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are as follows: "(1) Whether the registering officer can refer a document even if he does not find that the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument is less than even the market value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (2) Whether the Collector Stamps has power to fix the valuation of a plot on the assumption that the same is likely to be used for commercial purposes, and whether the presumed future prospective use of the land can be a criterion for valuation by the Collector; (3) What should be the norms for fixing the valuation of a free-hold land viz-a-vis lease land; (4) Whether the Collector can demand stamp duty under Section 47-A of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
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!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra learned senior standing counsel of the Income-tax Department and Sri Rupesh Jain appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The following questions have been raised in the present appeal. "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee claimed excess depreciation to the tune of Rs. 1,42,30,221 than what was admissible to him as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in spite of the fact that the assessee did not furnish any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for claiming excess depreciation than admissible under the Income-tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
V.K. Shukla, J. For getting an authoritative pronouncement, as to whether the definition of family as interpreted in the case of Ram Murat and others Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and others reported in (2006) (5) ADJ 396 is correct or not, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench for answering the following two questions' (i) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Murat (supra), defining the word 'Family' as given in Government Order dated 3.7.1990 ( Para 4.7) lays down the correct law specially after the enforcement of order 2004 ? (ii) Whether the definition of family as given in Clause 2(o) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order,2004, shall override the definition of family given in para 4.7 of Government order dated 3.7.1990 ? The factual background in which the aforementioned issues have been raised are that petitioner of present writ petition was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the year 1993. Petitioner's son Raj B...
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!