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.
Ganesh Vs. Mahadeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All647
Chandiramani, J.1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the appellate decree of Shri Kali Charan Agarwal, Civil Judge, Gonda, dated 24th February 1945.2. It appears that one Mata Prasad was the original owner of certain property and he mortgaged four pies share of zamindari property in patti Samjhari and Mahadeo Khata Khewat No. 48 Mohal Khas village Mayapur, to one Sarju Prasad. This mortgage was eventually foreclosed and a final decree for foreclosure was passed in favour of Sarju Prasad on 17th January 1942. On 3rd June 1943, Sarju Prasad sold his rights in the pro. party to the defendant Mahadeo for RS. 1,300. The plaintiff claimed that he was a co-sharer in patti Samjhari and Mahadeo and he had the right of pre-emption. The defence was that the defendant himself had a right of preemption when the foreclosure decree was passed; that he enforced his right of pre-emption and obtained this sale deed in his favour instead of filing a regular suit. Apparently he also pressed be...
Shiva Narayan Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All591; [1950]18ITR844(All)
Malik, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred to us under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The questions are:'(1) Whether on the fats and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant is a resident of British India under the provisions of Section 4A (a) Sub-clause (ii), Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee can be said to have been received or deemed to have been received by him in British India within the meaning of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act?'2. The assessee was a resident of Agra but in the year 1927-28 he left Agra and went to settle in Gwalior. He became a military contractor and got certain contracts for the manufacture of clothes, out of material supplied by the Government Ordnance Clothing Factory at Agra. When the question of payment arose, the assessee-wanted that he should be paid at Gwalior but the Accounts Officer of the Ordnance Clothing: Factory, Agra, wrote to h...
Shamnath Mushran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All612; [1950]18ITR840(All)
Malik, C.J.1. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether the visits of the assessee on the facts of the case could, on the correct interpretation of the words 'otherwise than on an occasional or casual visit' that find a place in S. 4A (a) (iii), be legally regarded as otherwise than occasional or casual.'2. The asseasee was an Assistant Solicitor employed in the Legislative Department of the Government of India. He was appointed the Legal Remembrancer of the Bikaner State on 14th September 1933. In the assessment year 1939-40 he was treated for purposes of assessment as a resident of British India. In the year 1940-41 it was held, however that he was a nonresident. In the year 1941-42 the question arose whether the assessee was or was not a resident of British India.3. The relevant provision of the Income-tax Act, Section 4 (A) (a) (iii), is as follows :'For the purposes of this Act any individual is resident in British India in any year if he having within the four years pre...
Shiva Shakti Saran Raghubir Saran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All620; [1951]19ITR314(All)
Malik, C.J.1. There was a joint family of a father and two sons, Sahu Nand Lal Saran, Shiva Shakti Saran and Raghubir Saran. This joint family was carrying on money-lending business. There was a partition on 10th March 1930, and the father and the two sons separated. After the separation, the father carried on the separate money-lending business and the two sons entered into a partnership, and the partnership also, under the name and style of Messrs. Shiva Shakti Saran Raghubir Saran of Moradabad carried on money-lending business. Sahu Nand Lal Saran was assessed to Income tax out of the income made by him from the money-lending business and from his other properties, and the partnership firm of Messrs. Shiva Shakti Saran Raghubir Saran of Moradabad was separately assessed to Income-tax as an unregistered partnership.2. Sahu Nand Lal Saran had during the previous year 1937-38 made some income by his money-lending business and a notice was issued to him by the Income-tax Officer under S...
Akbar Khan and ors. Vs. Abdul Ghafoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All690
Sapru, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for joint possession of two plots Nos. 4456 and 4769 in a certain village in Azamgarh. Admittedly, the patties are co-sharers. The case which was pat forward by the plaintiffs was that, being joint owners, they were entitled to joint possession of the two plots in question, that what was actually happening was that the defendants had taken exclusive possession of the plots and were not allowing them to interfere with their possession of it. They claimed that, because of this action of the defendants they were entitled to bring a suit for joint possession.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the plot in dispute was a tal or a low lying land which they claimed they had filled up and made cultivable. In so doing they had spent money and labour and the defence taken by them was that the remedy of the plaintiffs who undoubtedly were joint owners of these plots with them was to brin...
Shankhta Shukul Vs. Sm. Govindi Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All693
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are set out in the order of remand, dated 27th October 1949, by which certain issues were remitted to the trial Court for findings. On the first five issues remitted, the trial Court has returned the following findings :'All the plots in dispute except 691/1/146 karis were being cultivated by Mt. Govindi, the plaintiff, at the commencement of the Agra Tenancy Act (III [3] of 1926) within the meaning of Section 4, Clause (d) of the said Act. The dastbardari relates to the plots in dispute covering an area of 3652 Karis. It is the total area of 4749 Karis to which the suit relates. Deoki, Badri and Raghubar were not members of a joint Hindu family at the time of the death of Deoki. Badri and Raghubar were separate at the time of the dastbardari. The entire land in dispute was covered by the usufructuary mortgage executed by Badri and Raghubar in favour of Jamuna and Sheo Kunwar, on 18th February 1890 and the mortgagees di...
Bhagwan Dass and Sons, Cawnpore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1950
Reported in: [1950]18ITR524(All)
MALIK, C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act read with section 21 of the Excess Profit Tax Act. The assessee is a registered firm. Messrs. Bhagwan Dass and Sons, Kanpur. One Pandit Ratan Chand Kalia, who was formerly a manager of the firm, was taken in as a partner in the Kanpur and Lucknow branches of the firm under a partnership deed dated the 27th November, 1940. The principal business of the assessee firm during the relevant chargeable accounting period was the agency for the sale of the product of Muir Mills Co., Limited. In addition to that business the firm secured a tent-making contract from the Muir Mills Co., Limited, on the 1st of April, 1940. This proved a profitable undertaking. It was said that on the 1st of April, 1941, the firm gave up its interest in the tent-making contract to Mr. Kalia. The name under which the tent-making business was carried on was Sohrat Textiles Company. For the purpose of assess...
Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1950
Reported in: [1951]19ITR507(All)
MALIK, C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The question referred to us is as follows :-'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, Section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act was rightly applied and if so whether there is material to justify the finding that the main purpose of the transaction, i.e., appointment of two general managers in addition to the already existing whole-time manager and managing agents, was the avoidance or reduction of liability to excess profits tax.'The assessee is the Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills, Ltd., Kanpur. It was a private limited company up to the August 7, 1941. By a resolution of the company it was changed from a private limited to a public limited company. The members of two closely related families of Khaitan and Bagla formed the private limited company. The managing agents of this company were the Khaitan and Bagla families and they were working on...
Hira Lal Vs. Pearey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All272
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house situate in the town of Ganj Dandwara.2. One Girdhari owned a house. On his death his widow Sm. Bitoli succeeded to his property, In year 1939 Sm. Bitoli made a gift of the southern portion of this house to one Tota Ram. Tota Ram could not get possession over this portion and so he filed a suit for possession against Hira Lal, a grand-son of Harkishan, brother of Girdhari. He impleaded Sm. Bitoli also as one of the defendants.3. The defence in that suit was that 2/3rd part to the east of both the northern and the southern portions of the house belonged not to Girdhari but to his brothers, Narain and Jhunui and that, therefore, Tota Ram was entitled to obtain possession over l/3rd share to the west. While this suit was pending Sm. Bitoli sold the northern portion of the house to the present plaintiff respondent, Pearey Lal by sale deed dated 4-6-1940. Tota Ram's suit was decreed by the first Cour...
Mishrimal Gulab Chand Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All548; [1951]20ITR91(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This application was filed on 25-1-1950 and was for leave to appeal to the Federal Court under Section 66A (a), Income-tax Act. There is an office report that the application was one day beyond time. It does not appear that there is any period fixed, under the Income-tax Act, for an application for leave to appeal under Section 66A (2). Section 66A (3) is as follows :'The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V [5] of 1908), relating to appeals to His Majesty in Council shall, go far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under this section in like manner as they apply in the case of appeals from decrees of a High Court.' It is by reason of this provision that it has been assumed that Article 179, Limitation Act, is applicable, which provides for a period of ninety days for an application under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, now to the Supreme Court. Strictly speaking, Article 179, Limitation Act, does not see...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »