Allahabad Court May 1946 Judgments
Babu Kishan Chand Vs. Habib Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All448
Allsop, Ag. C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of suits for the recovery of money on the basis of mortgages. The question to be decided in both appeals is whether the mortgagor was a workman within the meaning of the Debt Redemption Act. Appeal No. 1374 of 1942 is an appeal against the decree of the Civil Judge of Benares passed in appeal in a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage. Appeal No. 999 of 1943 is as appeal against the order or decree of the Civil Judge of Ghazipur passed in appeal against the order of the Munsif on an application for the amendment of a decree for sale. In the former case it has been found as a fact that the mortgagor was employed to make golden embroidery or tinsel and in. the latter case that the mortgagor was employed in a sweet shop. In both cases it has been held that the mortgagor's wages were less than Rs. 600 within the twelve months preceding the first day of June 1940, and did not exceed Rs. 60 in any such months. In neither case was the mortgago...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Roop Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All125
Yorke, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order of remand passed by the learned Civil Judge at Moradabad on 24-11-1948, in the following circumstances.2. The appellant Mohan Lal brought a suit for rendition of accounts in the Court of the Munsif at Moradabad against two defendants, Roop Kishore and Suraj Mai, the former of whom was described as the, principal defendant and the latter as a pro forma defendant. He alleged that the principal defendant had entered into a contract of partnership with him in order to carry out some contracts which were to be obtained from the Public Works Department. The business was carried on for sometime, but the partnership was ultimately dissolved by consent of parties. The principal defendant was in charge of the partnership fund and had the duty of maintaining the accounts, but he had failed to render any accounts to the plaintiff. The principal defendant pleaded that he was not the accounting party and also that all accounts between the parties had ...
Tag this Judgment!A. H. Wheeler and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. and C. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1946
Reported in: [1947]15ITR19(All)
PATHAK, J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The questions referred for the decision of this Court by this reference are as follows :-'(1) Whether the assessee having once exercised his option under Section 8 (2) of the Excess Profits Tax Act (viz., that the business be deemed not to have been discontinued) before the prescribed date and the option so exercised having been accepted by the Excess Profits Tax Officer and the assessment made on the basis thereof (in respect of a chargeable accounting period), the assessee is entitled to withdraw the above option later on at the appellate stage with a view to claim that the business be deemed to have been newly commenced ?(2) if the answer to question No. (1) above be in the affirmative, whether in the present case, the previous year 1938 determined for the assessment for 1939-40 can by itself be selected as a...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. and C. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1946
Reported in: [1947]15ITR224(All)
PATHAK, J. - This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for decision by this Court of the following question :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer was entitled to re-open the assessment under Section 34 of the Act.'The assessee, in this case, is a practising Barrister who was assessed for the assessment year 1940-41 by the then Income-tax Officer, Moradabad, on January 28, 1941. He was assessed in respect of income from profession, property, interest and dividends. In the course of the assessment proceedings it transpired that the assessee had purchased and sold shares in companies and suffered losses in the course of those transactions. Such losses were not allowed as deductions as, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee was not carrying on business in the sale and purchase of shares. The said officer observed :-'Owing to war the assessee tried to dispose of his shares and purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshilal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. and C. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1946
Reported in: [1947]15ITR1(All)
This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in relation to an assessment made under Section 23 (2) read with section 34 of that Act, for the assessment year 1938-39. The question of law which has been referred for out decision is as follows :-Whether, in the circumstances of this case, in determining the profits and gains accruing or arising to the assessee from the Cairo business under Section 4 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (prior to its amendment in 1939), for assessment on the remittance basis, such expenses as are not admissible under Section 10 (2) of the Act are deductible from the gross profits in addition to those that are admissible under this section ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business in Agra. It has also got a branch business at Cairo in Egypt. It may be noted that the year of account for the business at Cairo ended October 1937 and that for the business at Agra head o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›