Allahabad Court September 1940 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.
Sheoduttrai Pannalal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All530
Collister, J.1. This is an application under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act (11 of 1922). The assesses is a Hindu family trading under the name of Sheodutt Rai Panna Lal. Sheodutt Rai was the father, but he and Panna Lal are both dead. Sheodutt Rai died in 1924, leaving two sons, Panna Lal and Ganesh Prasad. We are informed that under his will Sheodutt left the whole of his property, which was apparently self-acquired to Panna Lal; the only provision which he made for Ganesh Prasad was in the shape of an allowance of Rs. 5 a month. Panna Lal died during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, leaving a son, Prem Narain. Panna Lal and Prem Narain did money-lending business and they also manufactured lime and made and sold bricks. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1937-38, the accounting year being from 1st January 1936 to 31st December 1936. According to the return which the assessee made, the income from money-lending was Rs. 7714 and the profits which the brick-...
Sheoduttrai Pannalal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, C. P. and U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR118(All)
This is an application under section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). The assessee is a Hindu family trading under the name of Sheodutt Rai Panna Lal. Sheodutt Rai was the father, but he and Panna Lal are both dead. Sheodutt Rai died in 1924, leaving two sons, Panna Lal and Ganesh Prasad. We are informed that under his will Sheodutt left the whole of his propertywhich was apparently selfacquiredto Panna Lal; the only provision which he made for Ganesh Prasad was in the shape of an allowance of Rs. 5 a month. Panna Lal died during the pendency of the proceeding in this Court, leaving a son, Prem Narain.Panna Lal and Prem Narain did money-lending business and they also manufactured lime and made and sold bricks. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1937-38, the accounting year being from January 1, 1936 to December 31, 1936. According to the return which the assessee made, the income from money-lending was Rs. 7,714 and the profits which the brick-kiln accou...
Messrs. Mohammad Ayub Mohammad Jamil of Cawnpore, Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR610(All)
This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922).The assessee is a firm at Cawnpore having three partners, Mohammad Ayub, Mst. Zinat Bibi and Mst. Sayeeda Khatun. Mst. Zinat Bibi is the wife and Mst. Sayeeda Khatun is the daughter of Mohammad Hamza, brother of Mohammad Ayub. Mohammad Hamza is not himself a partner in this firm, but he has a business under the name of the Indian National Tannery and another under the name of the U. P. Tannery. These are both at Cawnpore.The year of assessment with which this reference is concerned is 1938-39, but it is necessary first to state certain facts as regards the assessment for the previous year 1937-38. In that year the Income-tax Officer found three items credited as cash receipts in the personal account of the three partners, namely Rs. 645 in the name of Mohammad Ayub, Rs. 44 in the name of Mst. Zinat Bibi and Rs. 11 in the name of Mst. Sayeeda Khatun. These items were in exact proportion to the respective share wh...
Hoti Lal Vs. Chatura Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All110
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question for consideration in the present appeal is as to what is the true interpretation of the words 'decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor' in Section 73(1), Civil P.C., and on the answer to that question depends the fate of this appeal. The facts that have given rise to the question are undisputed and are as follows : Hoti Lal plaintiff-appellant obtained a simple money-decree (No. 59 of 1930) against one Bisham-bhar Sahai on the basis of a promissory note executed by Bishambhar Sahai. Bishambhar Sahai died after the passing of the decree and, then, his sons Navin Chandra and Abinash Chandra were brought upon the record as his legal representatives, and certain properties of Bishambhar Sahai were attached in execution of the decree. Makhan Lal, the ancestor of the contesting defendant-respondents, also held a promissory note executed by Bishambhar Sahai and Navin Chandra and, after the death of Bishambhar Sahai, he put that p...
Hulasilal Ramdayal, Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR635(All)
This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces.The facts of the case are that Hulasilal Ramdayal is an assessee in the capacity of a Hindu undivided family. It carries on business in three mohallas of Cawnpore under the names of (1) Hulasilal Ramdayal, General ganj, Cawnpore, (2) Badridas Beharilal, Collector ganj, Cawnpore, (3) Badridas Beharilal, Halsey Road, Cawnpore. The first shop does business in cloth and spices on commission and so did the third shop, but the second one does business in grain on commission. The question whether all these business are single or separate does not fall for determination in the present case because it is common ground that if all these businesses have been carried on during the accounting year, the loss of one shop can under Section 24 of the Act be set off against the profits of the other two shops.The assessment year was 1937-38, but as the accounts of the asses...
Ganeshilal Chhappan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All24
Collister, J.1. This is a case which has been stated under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act. The assessee is a firm at Aligarh named Ganeshi Lal Chhappan Lal. The firm does sarrafa business and its main activity consists in buying ornaments and selling the gold and silver which is obtained from them. The firm melts the ornaments and converts them into gold and silver bars and these it sells in the market, some locally, but the bulk at Bombay. The bars are all tested at the Mint in Bombay and the quantity of dross is there imprinted on each bar; and thereafter the bars are sold in the market at a discount which corresponds with the percentage of dross as certified by the Mint. The assessee's account books are maintained according to the mercantile accountancy system. They are regularly kept, and up to the year 1934-35 tax was assessed upon their basis; but in that year the profits in gold transactions, as revealed by the books of the firm, were only 21/2 per cent, and this was not accepted...
Ujagar Singh Vs. Likha Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All28
Braund, J.1. This is a second appeal. It arises in this way. One Dhyan Singh, the father of the present plaintiff appellant, had occasion to bring a suit for pre-emption. On 18th January 1930 a decree was passed in favour 'of Dhyan Singh for pre-emption upon payment of a sum of Rs. 1500. This sum was payable as to Rs. 469 to the vendor, Gaya Singh, and as to Rs. 1031 to Likha Singh who was the original purchaser. The reason why those payments were to be made in that way was, apparently, that out of the original purchase price of Rs. 1500 a sum of Rs. 469 still remained due to the original vendor. There then follows the sequence of events which have given rise to this appeal. This appeal turns entirely on a point of limitation and it is, therefore, necessary to observe the dates with some care. The original decree was passed, as I have said, on 18th January 1980. The payments into Court were made immediately afterwards. In due course Likha Singh filed a first appeal against the pre-empt...
Gopal Das Parshottam Dass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All537
Bajpai, J.1. Under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, the applicant assessee prays that we should require the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, to state a case. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, and although in the course of argument it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the notice for submitting a return meant a notice to a firm, we have no doubt whatsoever that this position has been taken for the first time today before us and not even yesterday when the case was opened. The family has an income from property and from money-lending and Benarsi silk business. In response to the notice under Section 22(2) a return was filed by the assessee declaring an income of Rupees 12,758. Notices under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) were then issued and the books were produced on 25th August 1937. The Income-tax Officer examined the books and issued another notice under Section 22(4) requiring the assessee to produce all his books of account for the last three year...
Ganeshi Lal Chhappan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax C. P. and U. P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR81(All)
This is a case which has been stated under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee is a firm at Aligarh named Ganeshi Lal Chhappan Lal. The firm does sarrafa business and its main activity consists in buying ornaments and selling the gold and silver which is obtained from them. The firm melts the ornaments and converts them into gold and silver bars and these it sells in the market, some locally, but the bulk at Bombay. The bars are all tested at the Mint in Bombay and the quantity of dross is there imprinted of each bar, and thereafter the bars are sold in the market at a discount which corresponds with the percentage of dross as certified by the Mint.The assessees account books are maintained according to the mercantile accountancy system. They are regularly kept, and up to the year 1934-35 tax was assessed upon their basis; but in that year the profits in gold transactions, as revealed by the books of the firm, were only 2 1/2% and this was not accepted as correct by...
Gopaldas Purshottam Dass Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR372(All)
This is connected with Miscellaneous Case No. 403 of 1939 Gopaldas Parshottamdas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and U.P. [1941] (9 I.T.R. 130) which we have just disposed of. In this case also the assessee under Section 66(3) of the Act prays that we should require the Commissioner to make a reference to this Court.The fresh facts which it necessary to mention in connection with the present application are that after the Income-tax Officer had made an assessment in connection with the income of the present assessee under Section 23(4) he issued a notice to the assessee calling upon him to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on him in addition to the income-tax payable by him inasmuch as he had concealed the particulars of his income and dehberately furnished maccurate particulars of such income. From what we have said in the connected case it is clear that the income-tax authorities were of the definite opinion that the assessee had not exhibited before the authorities ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »