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.
Indian National Tannery Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR618(All)
This a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces.The assessee is a firm known as the Indian National Tannery of Cawnpore. For the assessment year 1936-37 the firm returned an income of Rs. 28,722. The books of account belonging to the firm were examined and they disclosed that since the previous year there had been an increase in the firms capital to the extent of Rs. 1,08,771, which represented money due respectively to eight traders who had supplied bark to the firm. The books showed this sum of Rs. 1,08,771 had been transferred partly to the reserve fund and partly to the personal accounts of the three partners, Mohammad Hamza, Mohammad Nazir and Mohammad Bashir, as follows :-(1) Reserve FundRs. 35,000(2) Mohammad Hamza' 52,388(3) Mohammad Nazir' 10,278(4) Mohammad Bashir' 11,105Total ...Rs. 1,08,771The corresponding debit entries were: (1) Mazhar Ali Mohammad UnasRs. 7,168,12(2) Mohammad Saghir' ...
Gopaldas Parshottamdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, C. P. and U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR130(All)
Under Section 66(3) of the Indian 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 to-day 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 Rs. 12,758. Notices under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) were then issued and the books were produced on August 25, 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 years and...
Yaqub Masih Vs. Christina Masih and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All93
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application by a wife who is respondent to a petition for a decree for dissolution of marriage. She claims that her husband should deposit Rs. 300 to cover her costs and expenses. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the point that a wife in India is not entitled to claim her costs from a husband who institutes proceedings against her for dissolution of marriage. He relies upon the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Mayhew v. Mayhew ('95) 19 Bom. 293. The learned Judges in that case went back to the principles upon which the ecclesiastical Court had based its view that a wife's costs should be paid by her husband and stated that the basis of the principle was that a wife's property passed absolutely into the hands of her husband upon marriage. The learned Judges said that a wife's property did not so pass under the provisions of the Succession Act and there, fore the principle should not apply. The matter may have been open to some doubt in the y...
Chandulal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All551
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, Chandu Lal, of an offence punishable under Sections 471 and 467, I.P.C. The appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eighteen months. The appellant was one of the trustees of a brahman boarding house at Muzaffarnagar. Some time in the year 1931, he was given a cheque for Rs. 400 by one Bhagwat Prasad. The money was to be used for the purposes of the boarding house. It was established that the money was misappropriated by the appellant and he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 800 under Section 406, I.P.C. In that case he raised the defence that he had returned the money to Bhagwat Prasad and as part of his evidence he produced a letter alleged to have been written at the instance of Bhagwat Prasad by one Narain Dat acknowledging the receipt of the money. The appellant's allegation was that he had paid the money to Manphul Singh, the agent of Bhagwat Prasad, and his contention was that the l...
Kanhaiya Lal Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All15
Bajpai, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, and a case has been stated before us on the application of the assessee by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces. Although the assessee in his application to the Commissioner formulated three questions of law, it is manifest that those questions were not happily worded in the application of the assessee and can be summarised, as the learned Commissioner has done, in one question. The question is:Whether in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled under Section 14(2)(b), Income-tax Act, to claim an exemption in respect of the amount of Rs. 59,011 received by him from the registered firm of Sadhuram Tularam at Calcutta when the firm itself was assessed to income-tax on a smaller sum, viz. Rs. 12,829 only.2. This question arises before us in connexion with the assessment year 1934-35 when Seth Kanhaiya Lal was being assessed to income-tax by the Additional Income-tax Officer...
Kanhaiya Lal Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All129
Bajpai, J.1. This is an application by an assessee Seth Kanhaiya Lal, under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, praying that this Court should require the Commissioner to state a case and refer the same to us after formulating certain questions for our decision. The learned Commissioner refused to state a case on the ground that the questions on which reference was sought did not arise out of the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner.2. The facts may now be stated. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1934-35, and on 3rd April 1934 the Additional Income-tax Officer of Meerut issued a notice under Section 22(2) to the assessee asking him to submit a return. The return was submitted in June 1934, but by an application in September 1935 the assessee objected to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer of Meerut. A question about the place of assessment thus arose within the meaning of Section 64(3) of the Act and the Income-tax Officer referred the matter to the Commiss...
Seth Kanhaiya Lal Goenka, Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR25(All)
This is an application by an assessee Seth Kanhaiya Lal under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act praying that this Court should require the Commissioner to state a case and refer the same to us after formulating certain questions for our decision. The learned Commissioner refused to state a case on the ground that the questions on which reference was sought did not arise out of the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner.The facts may now be stated. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1934-35, and on April 3, 1934 the Additional Income-tax Officer of Meerut issued a notice under Section 22(2) to the assessee asking him to submit a return. The return was submitted in June 1934, but by an application in September 1935 the assessee objected to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer of Meerut. A question about the place of assessment thus arose within the meaning of Section 64(3) of the Act and the Income-tax Officer referred the matter to the Commissioner ...
Kalyan Das Vs. Brij Keshore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All9
Braund, J.1. This is a second appeal. The facts and the circumstances out of which it arises are a little curious. The suit which was instituted as long ago as 9th August 1935, was for possession of a half interest in a house at Benares which it is sufficient for me to describe as house No. 146. This house and its adjoining house No. 147 have become the subject-matter of this and a good deal of this litigation in the following manner. The entirety of house No. 147 and a moiety of house No. 147 belonged to two persons, who are father and son named Nasir Husain and Nazeer Husain. The remaining moiety of house No. 146 belonged to a lady named Mt. Razia Begam, who was the wife, I think, of Nazir Husain. At some date prior to 1922, which is not material, Nasir and his son Nazeer Husain mortgaged the whole of house No. 147 and their moiety of house No. 147 to Kalyan Das, the plaintiff in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises. In 1922 in a suit No. 50 of that year t he plaintiff too...
Rai Bahadur Seth Ganga Sagar Vs. Reoti Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All507
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by Rai Bahadur Seth Ganga Sagar, plaintiff, and arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage dated 23rd May 1934. The mortgage was executed by Reoti Prasad, defendant 1. The other two defendants in the suit were Kaushal Kishore and Brij Kishore, sons of Reoti Prasad. All the three-defendants were admittedly members of a joint Hindu family. The mortgage was for a sum of Rupees 37,000 and the stipulated rate of interest was 12 annas per cent. per mensem with six monthly rests. Out of the sum of Rupees 37,000 advanced under the mortgage deed in suit a sum of Rs. 2762-15-6 was paid to Reoti Prasad in cash before the sub-registrar, and the balance of the mortgage debt was admittedly borrowed for the satisfaction of debts due on the basis of numerous hundis executed by Reoti Prasad. It was recited in the mortgage deed that Reoti Prasad had started business in the name of Kaushal Kishore Shib Kumar at Aligarh and that in connexion with that business, he had ...
Saghir Hassan Vs. Tayab Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All524
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for mesne profits. The respondent executed a mortgage by conditional sale in favour of the appellant. For reasons which are not disclosed possession of the property mortgaged was not given to the appellant. The appellant after the expiry of five years brought a suit in which he claimed possession as a proprietor or in the alternative if the deed in question was held to be a mortgage deed by conditional sale for foreclosure. The appellant further claimed in that suit mesne profits for three years. He was granted a decree for foreclosure and he was further granted a decree for mesne profits for three years. Subsequently the appellant filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in which he claimed again for mesne profits. The suit was dismissed as barred by Order 2, Rule 2, by the learned Munsif. The learned Additional Civil Judge however held that the suit was not barred and set aside the order of the Munsif and sent the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »