Allahabad Court April 1942 Judgments
Bhatta Gordhan Lal Vs. Shri Thakur Radha Kant Jugal Sarup Ji Maharaj T ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All109
Verma, J.1. On 16th April 1919, the appellant Gordhan Lal, and one Bal Mukand made a usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Balwant Rao. The mortgage money was Rs. 26,000 and the subject of the mortgage was the right to receive the revenue of a certain village. Defendant-respondent 1, an idol, is now the representative of the mortgagee. It is a common ground that the mortgagee was put in possession. By para. 11 of the mortgage-deed--a translation of that paragraph is given in the judgment of the trial Court--it was provided that the mortgagee would be entitled to interest on the mortgage money at the rate of six annas per cent. per mensem and that the annual interest on the sum of Rs. 26,000 calculated at that rate would come to Rs. 1170. It was further stated that it had been agreed upon that the mortgagee would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 121 per annum on account of collection charges. The total of these two sums, viz., Rs. 1291, was the amount to which the mortgagee was entitled eve...
Tag this Judgment!Rahomal Kannomal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1942
Reported in: [1942]10ITR386(All)
ORDER.This is an application under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. The facts giving rise to this application may be stated :The assessee who is the applicant before us is a Hindu undivided family dealing in gain, money-lending and commission agency business. The assessment year in which is in dispute in these proceedings is 1938-39. In compliance with a notice a return was made by the assessee to the effect that his income for the previous year was Rs. 6,000 odd. The income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the correctness of this return and, therefore, he issued notices under Section 22 (4) and 23 (2). These notice were complied with, but the Income-tax Officer issued another notice under Section 22 (4). It appears that the Department got some information from other traders that certain sales and purchases had been made by the assessee but they had not been entered in the books produced by the assessee. The notice under Section 22 (4) was, therefore, a notice dem...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Behari Lal BehargavA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1942
Reported in: [1942]10ITR388(All)
.IQBAL AHMAD, C. J.-This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decision of a Bench of this Court in a reference under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The facts that led to the reference are shortly as follows. Certain house property of Behari Lal Bahargave, the opposite party, was acquired by the Improvement Trust and a certain amount was awarded as compensation to the opposite party by the Acquistion Officer of the Trust. The opposite party being dissatisfied with the award of the Acquistion Officer, took the matter before the Improvement Trust Tribunal and the Tribunal increased the amount of the award and further awarded to the opposite party a sum of Rs. 12,708 by way of interest on the increased amount. It appears that after the award by the Acquisition Officer, the Trust had taken possession of the house and accordingly the Tribunal held that the opposite party was entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,708, by way of interest for the loss ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›