Uttaranchal Court August 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jyoti Prabha Society
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN429(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. Both these appeals, preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') are directed against the same judgment and order dated 31-10-2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi (ITAT), whereby the said authority has dismissed the appeals of the revenue, and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Dehradun [hereinafter referred as 'CIT(A)-II'], holding that the respondent/assessee is entitled to the exemptions under Section 11 of the Act.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-society M/s. Jyoti Prabha Society, Nainital, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 showing net deficit of Rs. 9,50,000 and for the assessment year 2001 -02, showing nil income. Said returns were processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as the A...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Atlas Offshore Services Gmbh Co.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN554(NULL)
ORDERPrafulla V. Pant, J.1. Both the above mentioned appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 9-3-2006, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'ITAT') in ITA No. 1398/Delhi/2003 for the assessment year 1992-93 and ITA No. 1397/Delhi/2003 for assessment year 1991-92.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The common question of law in the two appeals is as under:Whether the ITAT has erred in law in holding that notice under Section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued without jurisdictional foundation under Section 147 available to Assessing Officer, and is the action under Section 147 of the Act covered under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (c) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/assessee Atlas Offshore Services GMBH is non-resident company. Assessment for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93, were completed on 19-7-1993 and 10-9-1993 respectively (on the total income of Rs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: [2009]318ITR218(Uttaranchal); [2009]176TAXMAN265(NULL)
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-1 -2006, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi, whereby the said Tribunal has allowed the I.T.A. No. 1048/Delhi/ 2002 partly.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. Questions of law involved in this appeal are as under:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in holding that permitting the assessee to sell higher percentage of levy free sugar is not in the nature of revenue receipt.(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that production incentive bonus was deductible expenditure for computing the taxable income.4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/assessee is a co-operative society, who is engag...
Surjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Paramjit Kaur
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr10
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008, passed by Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh, in Suit No. 11 of 2006, whereby the appellant's petition for divorce, moved under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is dismissed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Surjeet Singh got married to respondent Smt. Paramjit Kaur on 02.06.1996 according to Sikh rites. Out of the wedlock two daughters, namely, Sifat Kaur and Achint Kaur were born in the year 1999 and 2000 respectively. The appellant's case is that the respondent treated him with cruelty. It is further pleaded that the respondent left the house of the petitioner (present appellant) on 15.06.2002, without any rhyme and reason, and started living with her parents, whereafter, she did not return to her matrimonial house. It is also pleaded by th...
Smt. Rabiya Vs. Ali HussaIn and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-18-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr37
ORDERB.C. Kandpal, J.1. This appeal, under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27-8-2001 passed by Civil Judge (S. D.) Roorke thereby dismissing First Appeal No. 5/2001, Smt. Rabiya v. Ali Hussain and Ors., thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 19-1-2001 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) dismissing Suit No. 155/96, Smt. Rabiya v. Ali Hussain and Ors.2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit against the defendants/respondents for cancellation of sale deed dated 10-5-1995, registered in Sub Registrar Office, Jagadari, Roorkee, at Bahi No. 1, Zild 02, 25 on 22-5-1995. According to the plaint case the plaintiff Smt. Rabiya inherited the property, shown in the Schedule of property given at the foot of the plaint, from her father late Sri Ahamad and now she is owner in possession of the said land. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3, Ali Hassan and Abdul Hassan, respectively are the sons of her great grand father and Smt....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Saklani
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Uttranchal)702; [2009]315ITR181(Uttaranchal)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of IT Act, 1961, is directed against the impugned order dt. 22nd Feb., 2005 passed in Misc. Appln. No. 7/Delhi/2005 by Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The question of law involved in this appeal is as under:Whether Tribunal has erred in law in rejecting the application for rectification moved by the Revenue/appellant, of its order dt. 22nd March, 2004 passed in ITA No. 3299-3302/Del/2001, misinterpreting proviso to Section 142A of IT Act, 1961, and by holding that assessment had become final 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee/respondent-M/s Hotel Saklani, 17, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, was served with the notice under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) by the AO in the year 1993. In response to said notice assessee submitted its return showing his income as Nil the matter pertains to the assessment year of 1987-88. During t...
Smt. Manpreet Kaur Vs. Devendra Pal Singh
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Utr4
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-1-2008, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Suit No. 24 of 2006, whereby the said Court has decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent (husband).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record.3. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondent got married to the appellant of 8th December 2003, according to the Sikh rites. After her marriage appellant started living in her husband's house in Gadarpur. Husband's (present respondent) case is that he maintained his wife and looked after her well when she lived with him. But, she (appellant) was a woman of a independent thoughts. She is a teacher in Government school. she did not adhere to any family traditions and limitations. How-ever, on 11-10-2004, a so...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›