Allahabad Court May 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.
Sohan Pathak and Sons, Banaras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1950
Reported in: [1951]19ITR199(All)
MALIK, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The assessee was a joint Hindu family owning considerable property in Banaras and carrying on business under the name and style of Messrs. Sohan Pathak & Sons. The Sohan Pathaks family tree is as follows :-SOHAN PATHAK GirdharGaneshMahesh RamShyam Sunder Man MohanChandra MohanBadri NathGopi NarayanRadhey Mohan Jitendra Mohan Hira Lal Panna Lal Kishori Lal Kamal Narain Hirday Narain Shri NathRam MohanShyam MohanKrishna Mohan The joint family was carrying on extensive business in Banaras brocade goods and in the year 1943-44 it has made a profit of Rs. 26,802. In 1944-45 upto July 16, 1943, it made a profit of Rs. 64,775 which was well in excess of the amount on which excess profits tax was payable, i.e., Rs. 36,000. On July 16, 1943, the adult members of the family are said to have made a partial partition by dividing the Banaras brocade business, the status ...
L. N. Gadodia and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, United and Centr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1950
Reported in: [1951]20ITR460(All)
This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the India Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The question referred to us for opinion runs as follows :-'Whether in the circumstance of this case of applicant-firm is liable to be assessed to exceed profits tax for the chargeable accounting period 30th October, 1940, to 19th October, 1941 on the income, profits and gains derived by it from(a) the selling agency of the Cawnpore Cotton Mills Co. (branch of the British India Corporation, Ltd.) and(b) the running or the management of the retail cloth shop of the Cawnpore Cotton Mills Co. ?'Messrs. L. N. Gadodia and Company, which is a registered partnership firm, secured the selling agency business of the Cawnpore Cotton Mills company, which is a branch of the British India Corporation, Limited by means of a written agreement drawn up on the 1st of March, 1938. The case of the firm is that the income derived by it from this selling agency business is not the income,...
Radha Krishen Pratap Singh Vs. H.S. Bates
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1953All302
Brij Mohan Lal, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 7 of 1948 are two appeals by the plaintiff under Section 12 (2), Oudh Courts Act (4 of 1925) against two decrees of a learned single Judge of the erstwhile Chief Court. The appeals were preferred before the amalgamation of the Chief Court with the Allahabad High Court.2. The plaintiff is one Kunwar Radha Krishna Pratap Singh who was formerly the Assistant Manager of the Balrampur Estate. The appellant happens also to be related to the Maharaja, i. e., the proprietor of the estate. He brought the suit, which has given rise to these two appeals, to recover a sum of Rs. 2000 as damages for slander and libel against four persons, namely, (i) H. S. Bates, I. C. S., Manager of the estate, (2) Y. A. Dikshit, Confidential Adviser to the Maharani Saheba, (3) V. V. Singh, Private Secretary to the Maharaja and (4) the Maharaja. In the plaint, as originally filed, damages were claimed against the first three defendants only, and it was stated ...
Hari Ram and anr. Vs. Dr. C.K.C. Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All425
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a defendants' application in revision arising out of a suit for fixation of rent under Section 5 (4), U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III [3] of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The applicants are the landlords and were defendants to the suit which was instituted by the opposite party.2. The opposite party entered into the occupation of the accommodation as a tenant of the applicants in July 1944, and the rent was fixed at Rs. 65 per month by an agreement between parties. A few months later, that is, near about February 1945, it was reduced to Rs. 60 per month. After the passage of the Act, the applicants enhanced the rent to Rs. 75 per month by means of a notice served upon the plaintiff opposite party under Section 5 (2) of the Act. The Municipal assessment of the accommodation is at the rate of Rs. 65 per month. So that according to the annual reasonable rent of the accommodation its monthly rent would be Rs. 81-4-0. The defen...
K.P. Bhargava Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and Berar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All613; [1951]19ITR254(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (l), Income-tax Act read with Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act. The question referred to us runs as follows:'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of the various provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act, specially 26 (1), the direction of the Board, dated 7th September, 1943, under Section 26 (1), in relation to the third chargeable accounting period has to be given effect to in respect of the first and second chargeable accounting periods also '2. The assessee had selected the year 1934-35 with reference to which the standard profits had to be ascertained.3. We are concerned with three chargeable accounting periods, the first period from the 1st September 1939 to 10th November 1939, the second period from the 11th November 1939 to 30th October 1940 and the third period from 31st October 1940 to 20th October 1941.4. The Excess Profits Tax Officer issued notices with respect to the first and second ch...
Ram Kishun Ram Vs. Sheo Nandan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All587
Agarwala, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed in a proceeding under Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act.2. Sheonandan Singh, the respondent, applied under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, and alleged that a one anna share in certain villages belonged to him. This property had been sold at an auction held as against him and had been purchased ostensibly in the name of one Raghunandan Singh. It appears that Baghunandan Singh had purchased this property for himself and his brother Jadonandan to the extent of one half and for one Radha Kishen to the extent of the other half. Jadonandan died and his share in the property was inherited by Raghunandan and his third brother Ram Kishen, the present objector appellant. Raghunandan has also died leaving certain grandsons who are no parties to the present proceedings. Ram Kishen made an objection under Section 11 of the Act claiming this entire one anna share of the property as belonging to him as a successor of Raghunandan. Sheo...
Chowdhary Mithoo Missar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. and C. P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1950
Reported in: [1950]18ITR530(All)
This reference contains more than one matter. the first of it is reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act with reference to a notice under Section 34 of that Act reopening the assessment for the years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. the reference was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by on order dated the 28th February 1946. the reference is of the same date but relates to the excess profits for the three years.The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It carries on an extensive trade in bristles which are exported to the England and are also sold locally. The assessee had for some years previous to the years in question adopted the method of interning in is books of account at the time of sending out the consignment a notional figure giving the value of each consignment. This amount was credited to the malkhata and debited to stock. When the bristles were sold in England accounts realised from the sales was received by the assessee, who then made final adjustments in ...
B. Jyoti Bhushan Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All622; [1950]18ITR777(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (l), Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred to us runs as follows:' Whether in the circumstances of this case, the definition of shares as made by the preliminary decree of the partition amounted to a partition in 'definite portions' within the meaning of those words as used in S. 25-A?'2. The assessee was assessed as a Hindu undivided family up to the assessment year 1938-39. In the year 1939-10 the assessee-applicant B. Jyoti Bhushan Gupta, claimed that as there had been a family partition in definite portions the joint Hindu family had ceased to to exist and the assessment should be made on the assessee as an individual.3. One B. Lakshmi Prasad had three sons viz. Raja Moti Chand, B. Gokul Chand and B. Mangala Prasad. The family continued to remain joint with Raja Moti Chand as Karta of the family. Raja Moti Chand died on 18th of March 1934, leaving behind no issue. On 2nd of June, 1936 B. Jyoti Bhnshan Gupta, son of B. Mangala...
State Vs. Brahma Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All556
Mootham, J.1. In this ease notice has been issued to three office-bearer and five members of the executive committee of the District Bar Association, Muzaffarnagar, to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of Court.2. On 20th April 1949, the executive committee held a meeting at which several resolutions were passed- The opening paragraphs of the first resolution were in these words :'Resolved that :Whereas the members of the Association have had ample opportunity of forming an opinion of the judicial work of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Judicial Magistrate, and Shri Lalta Prasad, Revenue Officer.'It is now their considered opinion that the officers are thoroughly incompetent in law, do not inspire confidence in their judicial work, are given to stating wrong facts when passing orders and are overbearing and discourteous to the litigant public and the lawyers alike.'Then followed a number of allegations which were described as 'other defects' which were in addition to the def...
Prahlad Singh Dhuru Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All589
Malik, C.J.1. This a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act of 1922. The question referred to us runs as follows:'Whether on the facts found by the Tribunal the benefit of Section 25 (4) is equally applicable to the business income done under the style of Prahlad Singh Dhuru Prasad started in 1933?'2. There was a sarrafa shop known as Hargyansingh Jagannath, Meerut. It was carried on by three brothers of a Hindu undivided family, viz., Prahlad Singh, Dhuru Prasad and Prakash Chandra. In 1933 the joint family entered into a partnership with one Gangu Mal and a new firm known as Prahlad Singh Dhuru Prasad was started. In this firm the same type of business, i. e., sarrafa business, was carried on and the joint family had eight annas share in it and the other eight annas belonged to Gangu Mal. During this period the joint family sarrafa business continued to be carried on. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that this was a separate business and there was no interlacing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »