Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1995)IIILLJ191All; (1992)1UPLBEC25
S.K. Dhaon, J.1. The interpretation of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) or Section 16 as amended by Section 21 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) is the subject matter of this petition.2. The petitioner a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 went into commercial production on 15th March, 1984. It employed a maximum number of 34 workmen with effect from the said date. The petitioner company was engaged in an industry which was specified in Schedule-1 to the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it employed more than 20 persons. Therefore, ordinarily the Act was applicable to it. However, in view of the provisions as contained in Clause (b), of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, as they then stood, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it for the time being.3. Section 16 of the Act, as relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ214
Giridhar Malaviya, J.1. Petitioner Bhagwat Dayal was detained in pursuance of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad Under Section 3(1) of the National Security Act. By the present petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of his detention in pursuance of the said order.2. Briefly stated the ground of detention served upon the petitioner is as follows:That on 3-7-1990 one Risal Singh lodged a police report at Model Police Station Link Road, Ghaziabad that on 2-7-1990 his son Rajendra had gone to supply milk in the evening. Near the railway line some unknown persons kidnapped him. On the night between 8th and 9th July, 1990 on information furnished by an Informer Station Officer, Police Station Link Road Sri Suresh Singh Chauhan along with other persons was checking the vehicles at Chhagjarasi bend when a maruti car bearing No. DBA 1106 arrived from the city side. When an effort was made to stop the car for checking, the car was slowed down and turned towards Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2790
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of First Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, convicting and sentencing each of the appellants to imprisonment for life Under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. It is noteworthy that the lower court had held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148 and 109, IPC also, but no punishment was proposed under any one of these sections. The appellants were sentenced only Under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC.2. A report was lodged by constable Ragho Prasad of police station Karvi, district Banda at 11.00 a.m. in the aforesaid police station that while on duty he reached old bus station and there he had been informed by people of the locality that the dead body was lying near well. Hence he rushed to the spot and noticed the dead body. On enquiry, he found that the dead body was of Deo Raj Singh. It had several gun-shot wounds.3. A case was registered on the said report and the investigation was taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1991)37ITD522(All.)
1. It is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the learned CIT (Appeals) dated 26-2-1990 for the assessment year 1974-75.The following grounds have been taken :- 1. (i) For that order dated 26-2-1990 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur is contrary to facts, erroneous in law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. (ii) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) should have held that the assessment order under Section 144 dated 10-11-1989 was barred by limitation and as such he should have quashed the aforesaid assessment order. 2. For that the appellant creaves leave to take, add and/or amend any further ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that the original return in this case was filed at an income of Rs. 55,82,360 on 6-12-1974 which is alleged to have been revised at an income of Rs. 53,60,580 on 22-3-1977. The ITO had passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1992)100CTR(All)179; [1992]193ITR543(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. - Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that conversion of the assessees proprietary business into a partnership amounted to a transfer of the assets of the proprietary business to the partnership and, in that view, holding that the development rebate on plant and machinery of the proprietary business transferred to the partnership within eight years was wrongly allowed within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which could be withdrawn under section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessee is an individual. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment years 1965-66, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, he was carrying on the business of printing and publication as proprietary business up to May 31, 1972. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1991)98CTR(All)266; [1991]190ITR190(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the assessee produces iron and steel (metal) and, therefore, it was entitled for a higher development rebate as provided under Section 33(1)(b) of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of mild-steel rods (M. S. rods). (The record before us does not set out or clarify the actual process of manufacturing the said article. All that it shows is that the company manufactures M. S. Rods). For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee claimed development rebate at 25% on extension or addition of plant and machinery made in the previous year relevant to the said assessment year, under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the said claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1996]218ITR638(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This batch of writ petitions calls in question the constitutional validity of Sub-section (8) of Section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The sub-section was inserted by the Finance Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, and omitted by the Finance Act, 1985, with effect from April 1, 1986.2. Section 40A sets out expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances. For the sake of convenience, we may set out Sub-section (8). It reads :'Where the assessee, being a company (other than a banking company or a financial company), incurs any expenditure by way of interest in respect of any deposit received by it, fifteen per cent. of such expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction. Explanation. -- In this sub-section, -- (a) 'banking company' means a company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies and includes any bank or banking institution referred to in Section 51 of that Act;(b) 'deposit' means any deposit of money with, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1991)94CTR(All)130; [1991]192ITR601(All); [1991]55TAXMAN516(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in its opinion that the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer for the sustained cash credit as part of the assessee's wealth treating them as the assessee's asset is incorrect ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Sri Tikam Chand Agrawal is its karta. The assessment years concerned are 1963-64 to 1969-70, both inclusive, seven years in all. Sri Tikam Chand Agrawal was a partner in a firm, Messrs. Chittar Mal Ram Dayal, in his capacity, as the karta of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In the Income-tax assessment of the said firm, Messrs. Chittar Mal Ram Dayal, in his capacity as the karta of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In the income-tax assessment of the said of the said loans as income of the firm. The assessee's share in the said amounts w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1606
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. Both the aforesaid applications arise out of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 Sudhir Chopra numbered as Complaint Case No. 2617/ 89 Under Section 420/ 406/120-B, IPC. of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, against the 11 accused, the applicant V. Kothari and M/s. Sunds Defibrator AB, being accused No. 1 and 11 respectively. In both the cases State of U.P. and Sudhir Chopra are opposite parties No. 1 and 2 respectively. Since these two applications relate to the same complainant case, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. Sudhir Chopra claimed himself to be the Vice President of a Company known as Best Boards Limited having its factory at Gajraula, Police Station Gajraula District Moradabad, U.P. The allegations in the complaint in short are that M/s Sunds Defibrator AB is a company with its registered office at Sweden. This company works in India through its representatives such as accused Nos. 4 to 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2430
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 7-12-1982 passed by Sri R. K. Khanna, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (West), U.P., Luck-now in Case No. 11 of 1974 State v. P.C. Rastogi, convicting the appellant under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to six months' R.I. in one count and six months' R.I. with another and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the respective counts and in default of payment of fine to a further R.I. of three months making the sentences in each count to a run concurrently and directing the sentence in default of payment of fine to run consecutively.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 1973 the appellant was working as Consolidation Officer, Upaira, Zila Meerut. A case pertaining to mutation in re : Jaiprakash v. Permanand was pending in the Court of the appellant and 3rd May, 1973 was fixed for hearing. Jaiprakash P.W. 1 came ...
Tag this Judgment!