Allahabad Court January 1952 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.
In Re: Income-tax Assessment of Gabdulal Tulsiram, Farrukhabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All81; [1952]21ITR330(All)
Malik, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to us under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case and on the facts stated above, the sum of Rs. 11,265 paid by the assessee was an admissible deduction under Section 10 (2) (xv), Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on money-lending, sarraja and cloth business. The assesses was required under the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance (9 of 1940) to get his full quantity of stock insured. Year after year the assessee was getting his goods insured but for an amount far below the actual value of the stock that was in hand. Ultimately, the assessee was caught and notice was served on him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. The matter was, however, compounded under Section 12 (A) of the said Ordinance and a sum of Rs. 16,895-8-0 was paid by the assessee to the Central Government to compound the offence. The assessee claimed the whole of this amount as a deductable...
In Re: the Assessment of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All928
Malik, C.J. 1. These are two references, one at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the other at the instance of the assessee. 2. The assessee is the Hindustan Commercial Bank, Ltd., with its head office at Kanpur. In the account year 1944-45 the assessee opened forty-six new branches, sub-branches and pay offices. In opening these new branches expenses were incurred and, while the assessee claims that the amount spent was a revenue expenditure deductible under Section 10 (2) (xv), Income-tax Act, on behalf of the Department it is claimed that the expenses incurred were in the nature of capital expenditure. 3. The Tribunal held that a part of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 89,870 was revenue expenditure and the balance, which came to Rs. 24,675-2-9, was capital expenditure. Though the Tribunal was of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 89,870 in round figures was revenue expenditure but as this was 'deferred revenue expenditure' it spread it over a period of twenty years o...
Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1952
Reported in: [1952]21ITR353(All)
These are two references, one at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the other at the instance of the assessee.The assessee is the Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., with its head office at Kanpur. In the account year 1944-45 the assessee opened forty-six new branches, sub-branches and pay offices. In opening these new branches expenses were incurred and, while the assessee claims that the amount spent was a revenue expenditure deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, on behalf of the Department it is claimed that the expenses incurred were in the nature of capital expenditure.The Tribunal held that a part of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 89,870 was revenue expenditure and the balance, which came to Rs. 24,675-2-9, was capital expenditure. Though the Tribunal was of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 89,870 in round figures was revenue expenditure but as this was 'deferred revenue expenditure' it spread it over a period of twenty years on the ground ...
Gulab Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ730
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. Gulab Singh, a Sub-Inspector of Police at the material time, was charged with, but acquitted of, offences punishable under Sections 161 and 384, I.P.C. by a first class Magistrate of Bilaspur. A river-range officer, Sardar Kirpal Singh by name, wa3 also a co-accused, and he too was acquitted. The learned Magistrate used the expression honorable acquittal while acquitting the river-range officer of both the offences and Gulab Singh of that under Section 384, I.P.C. but in acquitting the latter of the offence under Section 161, I.P.C. he stated that he was given the benefit of doubt. I am told that Gulab Singh has since retired and the question of his pension is under consideration, and that as lie apprehends that the language used by the Magistrate in acquitting him of the charge under Section 161, I.P.C. might prejudice his right to pension he went tip in revision to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has examined the judgment of the learned Magistrate...
Madan Mohan Lal Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All463
ORDERBeg, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow recommending that, the order of forfeiture of the alleged 'nal' and 'phar' money and the destruction of other articles recovered during the search passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow (Sri p. D. Joshi) on April 2, 1951, beset aside. One Madan Mohan Lal was pro- secuted under Sections 3 & 4 of the Public Gambling Act. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow tried the case and acquitted him of the offences with which he was charged. In spite of the order of acquittal he directed the forfeiture of the alleged 'nal' money kept in a cigarette tin & 'phar' money found on the spot as well as the destruction of the articles recovered during the search by the police. The accused Madan Mohan Lal went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow, who has made this reference with the above mentioned recommendation.2. I have read the order of reference as well as...
Dargahi Lal Nigam Vs. Cawnpore Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All385
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision against a decree of a Small Cause Court Judge, dismissing his suit for recovery of arrears of pay and certain other amounts. The applicant was in the employ of the Municipal Board, Kanpur at a monthly salary of Es. 50, in charge of looking after the Board's cases in various Courts. He was suspended from service on 2-9-1941 and, later on, prosecuted in two cases for misappropriation of funds. In one he was acquitted on the 4th January, and in the other discharged on 1-2-1943. He was then re-instated on 7-3-1943; but departmental proceedings being taken against him, he was dismissed from service on 22-18 1948. When re-instated, he was not paid the remaining 3/4ths of his salary for the period of his suspension, 3-9-1941 to 7-3 1943, only 1/4th being paid to him during the interval as a subsistence allowance He served a notice on the Board on 21-10 1944, asking for the arrears of his pay at the rate of Es. 37-8-0 per month,...
Sitla Bakhsh Singh Vs. Kr. Surendra Bikram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All378
ORDERBeg, J.1. This is an appeal by Raja Sitla Bakhsh Singh, defendant 1 in a suit for possession of a house situate in village Payer Khas, district Gonda. The suit was tiled against him by the plaintiff-respondent Kunwar Surendra Vikram Singh, The plaintiff brought the suit for possession of the house on the allegation that one Rani Sarfaraz Kunwar was the owner of the property in dispute. She gifted the same to defendant a Rani Jairaj Kunwar by a gift deed dated 9-3-1899, and the said defendant 3 Rani Jairaj Kunwar gifted it to the plaintiff on 18-4-1946. Defendant 1, Sitla Bakhsh Singh and his wife defendant 2 were in unlawful possession of the said property and the plaintiff prayed for possession of the said house.2. The main contesting defendant in the case was Sitla Bakhsh Singh. Ho raised a number of defences. He denied the right of Rani Sarfaraz Kunwar to gift the property in question in favour of Rani Jairaj Kunwar. He further alleged that the property was held by Rani Jairaj ...
Ram Bharosey Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All481
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is a revision by one Ram Bharosey who has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 414, Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts found by the lower appellate Court on which the applicant has been convicted are that a calf belonging to Mithulal was lost by him on 4th September 1949. On 5th September 1949 it was sold in the weekly market by Ram Bharosey applicant to one Habibullah for a sum of Rs. 28. It was later recovered from the house of Habibullah on 6th September 1949. The lower Court has also found that Ram Bharosey failed to give any satisfactory explanation of being in possession of this calf. The explanation which Ram Bharosey gave was that the calf belonged to him, but this plea of Ram Bharosey has been disbelieved by the appellate Court and has been held to be false. These findings given by the lower appellate Court are findings of fact and the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show th...
Allah Rabbul AlmIn and anr. Vs. HasnaIn Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All1011
Mushtaq Ahmad J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for declaration that plaintiff 2 is the Mutwalli of the entire village Hirapur, district Bulandshahr, and that the defendant is not the Mutwalli of a half share in the said property. The plaintiff subsequently prayed for possession also, on which he paid the necessary court-fee.2. On 14-10-1900, a lady named Imamunnisa, executed a deed of waqf in regard to the said village in which she laid down the following scheme for the appointment of Mutwallis:'. . . After my death Bibi Rab tb Bano, daughter, whom I have brought up as my own daughter shall be the Mutwalli in my place ..... that after her death, first her eldest son, and, in case he was incompetent or for any other reason was unable to carry out his functions, her other sons would be the Mutwallis in order of seniority.' The italics are mine.This is the correct rendering into English of the original clause, the translation at page 53 of the paper book not being quite accurat...
In Re: Phool DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All491
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This is a proceeding under Section 36, Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.2. On 13th December 1948, the Honorary Secretary of the Advocates' Association of this Court forwarded to the Registrar a resolution passed by it at a meeting held on 1st December 1948, especially convened for the purpose of considering the question of toutism. The resolution runs as follows:'That the Advocates' Association hereby declares that the following persons habitually act as touts and by their general repute are touts. (List of names who bring the oases from stations, Dharamshalas, sarais and other places). 1.Phool Din TamollNakhas Kohna, Allahabad.2.Mahadeo Prasad,Bhat Yahiapur, Allahabad.3.Bam Khelawan, BrahmanBadshahimandi, near the house of Sheoamar Lal, Vakil, Allahabad.4.Jai Ghand s/o Maha-deoPrasadYahiapar, Allahabad.5.Zaheer HusainBaran tale Garhi (Dondi-xpur),Allahabad.6.Chanda BhatyaraSarai Khuldibad,Ekkawala, Allahabad.7.Jhamman BhatyaraSarai Khuldabad,Ekkawala, Allahabad8....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›