Allahabad Court January 1942 Judgments
Santa Singh Vs. Ramdhari Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1945All5
Dar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a pre-emption suit. On 2nd June 1937, Debi Prasad, a cosharer in two villages, Pargaspur and Bhagwanpur, situated in Azamgarh District, executed a sale of his rights and interests in the said two villages in favour of Ramdhari Singh for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 2000. Soon after the execution of the sale, the vendor Debi Prasad died leaving a son, Ram Sunder Singh, and within a few months of the sale on 24th January 1938, Santa Singh who is a brother of Debi Prasad raised, an action in the Court of the Munsif of Azamgarh for pre-emption of the property, the subject-matter of the said sale, against the purchaser, Ramdhari Singh. In this action the son of Debi Prasad, namely, Ram Sunder Singh, was made a pro forma defendant, namely, defendant 2. Two questions arose in this case. One was whether the plaintiff Santa Singh was entitled to pre-emption the property or not? The second question was what was the real consideration of the sale? T...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam DIn and C0. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax U. P. and C. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1942
Reported in: [1942]10ITR89(All)
.This is an application under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act praying that the Commissioner of Income-tax be required to state a case to this Court.It appears that for the assessment year 1933-34 the applicants were assessed to tax on an income of Rs. 7,414. We are informed that there was an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner and that the assessment, was reduced. On July 17,1934, a notice was served upon the applicants under Section 34 of the Act requiring them to submit a fresh return in respect to escaped income; and in reply the applicants filed a return on October 12, 934, shoeing the same income as they has shown in their original return, namely, Rs. 5,44. Ulitemately on January 8, 1936, the Income-tax Officer re-assessed the applicants upon an income of Rs. 47,707 under Section 23 (4) and he also called upon them to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon them under the provision of Section 28 of the Act. On January 11, 1936, a notice was served s upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhman Das Brijballbh Das.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1942
Reported in: [1942]10ITR186(All)
.This is an income-tax reference under Section 66 (3) of the Act arising out of the assessment o Messrs. Lachhman Das Brijballabh Das for the assessment year 1934-35. The assessees accounting year was the Diwali year from November 1932 to November 1933 and the profits of that period have got to be considered for the purpose of this reference.It appears that when called upon to submit a return he filed one, but the Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the return did not furnish true particulars and therefore he went carefully into the regular account books of the assessee and considered certain facts which became evident from a little investigation. He increased the profits of the assessee and being of the opinion that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income he imposed a penalty under Section 28 of the Act.There was an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner and that officer, although he reduced the amount of the tax, was also of the opinion that there had been delib...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Lal Balmukand in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1942
Reported in: [1942]10ITR131(All)
The only question which we have to decide in this reference under Section 66 (3) of the Income-tax Act is as follows :'Whether is was not obligatory upon the Income-tax Officer to strike off unnecessary portions out of four capacities in which an assessee could be assessed to clearly indicate in which capacity the assessee was required to submit the return. If so, whether the notice under Section 22 (2) of the Act [with was enclosed with the petition under Section 66 (2)] issued by the Income-tax Officer without indication it, and the assessment following it, were wholly void ?The notice which is issued under Section 22 (2) of the Act requires the person to whom it is addressed 'to prepare a true and correct statement of your/your firms/the familys/the associations total income during the previous year......' The contention on behalf of the assessee is that it is the duty of the Income-tax Officer to score out of the four capacitites as do not apply as to the potential assessee to whom...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›