Uttaranchal Court May 2009 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax and Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax ( ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: [2009]313ITR369(Uttaranchal); [2009]181TAXMAN144(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) is directed against the order dated 12th of October, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ITAT), whereby Income Tax Appeal No. 4758 / Del / 2005 (Assessment Year 2003-04), filed by the revenue, is dismissed.2. The question of law involved in this appeal, is as under:Whether, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that reimbursement of expenses on account of catering charges and fuel etc. to the assessee were not part of the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 19613. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that assessee, a non-resident company, is incorporated in U.S.A. For the Assessment Year 2003-04, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2003, showing total income at Rs. 6,17,89,710/-. Said return was proce...
Vijay Goyal and Etc. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Utr12
ORDERSudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. In both these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27-12-2008 of the Regional Transport Authority, by which the Stage Carriage Permit under the Motor Vehicles Act can only be granted to those applicants who have a new vehicle. Since the subject matter and in fact the order impugned are the same, these two petitions are being disposed of by a single order.2. According to the petitioner, the order of 3 the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RTA') is totally without jurisdiction as the RTA does not have the jurisdiction or power to fix the age of a vehicle and such power lies exclusively in the domain of the Central Government under Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The State Counsel in its counter affidavit has, however, stated that the RTA has only powers to pass such an order and this power has been given to the RTA under Section 72 of the Act, for ready reference...
Sriyash Technologies Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4176
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to recall its decision awarding the contract for preparing Smart Card based driving licences and vehicle registration certificates to respondent No. 3, i.e., H.I.L.T.R.O.N., a public sector undertaking, which has entered into contract with respondent No. 4 to get the work done. Further mandamus has been sought directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to call an open tender bidding for awarding the contract for aforesaid purpose.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter-affidavits . and rejoinder-affidavits, filed by the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that in July, 2000, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (for short M.O.R.T.H.), Government of India, felt need to modernize the age old manual system of maintaining State Registers and records in the tr...
Century Textile and Industries Limited Vs. Assistant Labour Commission ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC181(UHC)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.12.2003, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby reference has been made under Section 4K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, in respect of the following industrial dispute:Whether termination order dated 16.11.2000, passed by the employer against its workman Shri Ram Chandra Malani, S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Malani, Assistant Officer (Raw Material), is proper and/or legal? If not, to what benefits is the workman entitled2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that petitioner is a unit of Century Textile and Industries Limited, having its registered office in Mumbai. In its unit, situated at Ghanshyam Dham, P.O. Lalkuan, District Nainital, the petitioner manufactures Rayon Grade Pulp & Paper, Bagasse Paper etc. According to th...
Surendra Kumar Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-12-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3287
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-7-1994, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1993, whereby accused/appellant Surendra Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I. P. C), and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the convict (appellant) is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court Record.3. Prosecution case is that on 17-10-1992 (a day before the incident in question), Ashok Kumar (deceased) was to play a role in Ram Leela in Banjarwala, Dehradun. His brother Vinod Kumar was making sitting arrangements for ladies. Meanwhile, accused/appellant Surendra Kumar came the...
Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammed Khan Vs. Metropole Hostels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Utr7
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. On due consideration, Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 3011 of 2009) is allowed and the delay in filing the counter-affidavit is hereby condoned.2. In this Civil Revision Petition filed Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order dated 19-11-2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital is under challenge. Vide the said impugned order, the learned Court below partly allowed and partly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC in which the petitioner had prayed for the rejection of the plaint. The learned Court below while partly allowing the aforesaid application, held that the suit qua defendant No. 2-Custodian of Enemy Property, was not maintainable in view of the bar created Under Section 19 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. Also, in view of the fact that defendant No. 2 being a Government functionary and notice Under Section 80, CPC not having been served upon this defendant prior to t...
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, (Earlier Trade Tax) Vs. J.K. Ghai
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST567(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. In all the above three revisions, following common questions of law are involved, as such the same are being disposed of together:(i) Whether, the Commercial Tax Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the second appeal, filed under Section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, on the ground that the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, has no authority to sign the memorandum of appeal on behalf of Commissioner, Commercial Tax?, and whether an appeal filed only by the 'State' is maintainable on behalf of Revenue, against order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)?(ii) Whether, the Commercial Tax Tribunal and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, have erred in law in holding that the assessee, a works contractor, is not liable to pay the tax in respect of amount mentioned in the certificate of tax deduction at source, which was not verified nor the deducted amount paid in the account of the State Government?2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at lengt...
Kalyan Singh Vs. Diwan Singh and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Utr1
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. It is a very peculiar case where the Returning Officer has caused incalculable damage to respondent No. 1 by grossly misusing his official position and by indulging in an act, which was not at all warranted or permissible.2. The facts in brief:Election was held for the membership of Kshetra Panchayat Kharsar, Development Block : Narendra Nagar. Respondent No. 1 Diwan Singh and writ petitioner Kalyan Singh were the contesting candidates in this Election. The polling took place on 10th September, 2008. The counting of ballots was held on 13th September, 2008 and at about 7 p.m., the Returning Officer declared the result. As per the declaration of result by the Returning Officer, respondent No. 1 Diwan Singh secured 485 votes as against 443 votes secured by the writ petitioner. 53 Votes were declared as invalid. The Returning Officer, Sri G.S. Rawat, respondent No. 2 herein, after declaration of the result issued a certificate in favour of respondent No. 1 and as per th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›