Allahabad Court December 1950 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.
Nausha Mian Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All626
Mustaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a deft.'s appeal in a suit for possession over plots Nos. 15, 16, 17 & 18 of village Malwara in district Moradabad. The pltf.'s case was that he had been in possession of those plots as a zamindar but that the deft., some time prior to the suit, had unlawfully dispossessed him. He further alleged that, in the course of his possession, the deft, had constructed some cattle troughs on plot 15, which, like plot 18, was an uftada land, except that on plot 18 there was also a well. The pltf.'s case also was that plots 16 & 17 had been in possession of one Bahadur Shah who left the village some time back, after which these plots had reverted to the pltf. zamindar but had been wrongfully taken possession of by the deft.2. The defence was that all the four plots in dispute had been in possession of Bahadur Shah whose heir the deft. was & that he had been in possession of the same as such. As regards the troughs on plot 15 there was a plea that they had been erected i...
Ramkishan Sunderlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1950
Reported in: [1951]19ITR324(All)
In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act the Tribunal referred to us a number of questions and it will be convenient to take up each question separately.The assessee is a registered firm and runs the New Kanpur Flour Mills. That the firm had extensive business will be evident from the fact that the turnover for the relevant accounting period, July 22, 1943, to June 22, 1944, was as much as Rs. BBHG 15,38,895.In that year the assessee firm had to spend a sum of Rs. 1,554 in changing certain cables of the flour mill plant.The first question referred to us is :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 1,554 on the change of cables of the flour mill plant could be said to be an expenditure over their repairs and as such allowable under Section 10(2) of the Act ?'Section 10(2) of the Act gives a list of the expenses which have to be deducted when computing the profits and gains of the assessee, section 10(2)(v) provides for deduction of mon...
Ram Dhari Misir Vs. Mangal Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All555
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. The material facts are these :2. On 2-7-1945, a deed which was ostensibly one of gift was executed by defendant 5 in favour of Ram Nihora, father of defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff came with the allegation that the transaction was really one of sale and the deed was executed as one of gift to defeat the right of pre-emption. Both the lower Courts have concurrently held that the transaction was really one of sale. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the land was a protected land and as no permission of the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division had been obtained under Section 24, U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act, 1940, the transaction could be treated only as a mortgage under Section 25 of the said Act. In appeal the learned District Judge took an opposite view. He remarked :'The right of pre-emption is nothing more and nothing less than a right of s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›