Allahabad Court August 1952 Judgments
Ram Kumar Ram Niwas Nanpara Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P. and Ajmer M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All150
Malik, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Officer refused an application under Section26A, Income-tax Act, for registration of a partnership firm. This order was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter an application was made that a case be stated to this Court under Section66(1), Income-tax Act. The Tribunal has thereupon referred to this Court the following two questions. 1. Whether the inclusion of Ghanshayam Das and Sunder Lal (two brothers constituting a Hindu undivided family) in the deed of partnership dated 7-3-1945, as partners of 3.1/5 as a co-parcenary unit, without specification of their shares inter se, rendered the partnership inoperative and illegal within the meaning of Section 4, of Partnership Act. 2. Whether the application under Section 26A. Income-tax Act, seeking registration of the Instrument of Partnership dated 7-3-1945, in which application the collective share of 3.1/5 annas of Ghanshyam Das and Sunder Lal had been shown against their names as a unit, which appl...
Tag this Judgment!Har Dev Sharma Vs. Bal Mukund
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ145
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is an application under Section 526, Criminal P.C. by one Pt. Har Dev Sharma for the transfer of the case pending against him and one Bhawani Shankar under Section 501, Penal Code, in the Court of a first class Magistrate at Bilaspur on the complaint of one Pt. Bal Mukand. The co-accused Bhawani Shankar has to-day associated himself with this application. The application has been opposed on behalf of the complainant.2. The present complaint was filed on 28.3.1952. On 6.3.1952 a complaint had been filed by the present petitioner against the said Pt. Bal Mukand and the latter's brother Pt. Sada Nand for an offence under the aforesaid section of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of tho Magistrate first class, Solan in the State of Himachal Pradesh, An application for transfer of that case was filed by Pt. Bal Mukand on 15.7.1952. The present application was also filed on the same date, and the ground for transfer alleged in the present petition is that the two ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Ramniwas of Nanpara Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1952
Reported in: [1952]22ITR474(All)
The Income-tax Officer refused an application under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act for registration of a partnership firm. This order was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter an application was made that a case be stated to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal has thereupon referred to this Court the following two questions :-(1) Whether the inclusion of Ghanshyam Das and Sunder Lal (two brothers constituting a Hindu undivided family) in the deed of partnership dated March, 7, 1945, as partners of 3 1/5 as a coparcenary unit, without specification of their shares inter se, rendered the partnership inoperative and illegal within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act.(2) Whether the application under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act seeking registration of the instrument of partnership dated March 7, 1945, in which application the collective share of 3 1/5 annas of Ghanshyam Das and Sunder Lal had been shown against their name...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Seth Multanimal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All31; [1952]22CompCas264(All); [1952]22ITR331(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act read with Section 66(1), Income-tax Act. The question referred to this Court is as follows :'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the remuneration granted to R.B. Seth G.M. Modi is directors' remuneration within the meaning of the term as used in Schedule 1, Rule 7 (1), Excess Profits Tax Act road with Clause (2) (a) of the same rule?'There was a Hindu undivided family firm known as R.B. Multanimul and Sons which till March 1940 worked as Managing Agents of the Modi Sugar Works Ltd. There was a disruption in the family and the Hindu undivided family firm was succeeded by another firm of the same name which carried on business up to September 1940. In September 1940, a private limited company was formed which took over as a going concern the business of R.B. Multanimul and Sons and thus became the Managing Agents of the Modi Sugar Works Ltd. From the Articles of Association of the Company it appears that the...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Gopal Bagla Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P. and Ajmer-merwara
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All141; [1952]22ITR464(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. The point raised in this reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act is: 'Whether under the circumstances of the case Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in disallowing the bad debt of Rs. 26,251/- and the proportionate costs under question?'2. The assessee is Seth Madan Gopal Bagla, an individual. He was a partner in two firms, Harnandrai Phoolchand at Calcutta and Phool-thand Mohanlal at Kanpur. There were two other partners in these firms, Raj Bahadur Chiranji Lal and Seth Pearey Lal. There was a dissolution of partnership and a sum of Rs. 48,510/-was found due to the assessee as his share of the partnership assets of the Calcutta firm and a sum of Rs. 14?541/- was found due to him ashis share of the partnership assets of the Kanpur firm. Besides these two items there was a third item of Rs. 29,463/-. Raj Bahadur Chi-ranji Lal was the guardian of the assessee's father, L. Kashi Nath, who was a lunatic. He misspent or had failed to account for the money whi...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Ram and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All42
ORDERAgarwala, J. 1. There is no force in this revision on the merits. The Magistrate passed a composite order of sentence of 18 months rigorous imprisonment under Sections 452 and 323, Penal Code read with Section 149, Penal Code and of six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, Penal Code. In appeal the learned Judge considered that a composite sentence of punishment should not have been made but took no further steps in the matter. It has been urged that the composite sentence could not he passed, and in support of this argument reliance has been placed upon the ruling of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Brij Nandan v. Emperor : AIR1948All136 . In that case five accused were tried under Sections 147 and 452 and Section 328 read with Section 149, Penal Code. The learned Magistrate who tried the case passed an order convicting the applicants without specifying the sections of the Indian Penal Code under which he was convicting them and passed combined sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!P. Stanwill and Co. Auctioneers, Cawnpore Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All88; [1952]22ITR316(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act read with Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act. The assessee firm Messrs. P. Stanwill & Co. is a partnership firm and the partners work as auctioneers in the city of Kanpur. During the chargeable accounting period 1943.44 the assessee's income from this business amounted to Rs. 94,284. The Excess Profits Tax Officer considered that excess profits tax was leviable on the profits of the business made during the accounting period. The assessee, on the other hand, challenged their liability on the ground that they were carrying on a profession and the profits depended mainly upon their personal qualifications. A suggestion was also made on behalf of the department that the profession consisted wholly or mainly in the making of contracts on behalf of other persons. There were thus three points raised: firstly, whether the assessee carried on a profession; secondly, whether in that case the profits depended mainly on their ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanodia Brothers, Cawnpore Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer-merwa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All41; [1952]22ITR311(All)
Y. Bhargava, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal: 'Whether in the circumstances of the present case, renewal of registration of the firm Kanodia Bros. could be allowed on the basis of the partnership deed dated 5-1-1943, which gave a wrong constitution of its branch concern?' 2. The facts given in the statement of the case show that Kanodia Bros. was a partnership firm consisting of four partners, Murlidhar Kano-dia, Manoharlal Kanodia, Jagmohan Lal Kanodia and Bhilai Ram, each having an equal share of four annas in the firm. This partnership had corne into existence in the year 1940. The assessment year in respect of which this case has been referred to us is the year 1943-44 and the accounting year relating to that assessment year is from October 1941 to October 1942, corresponding to Asoj, Samvat 1898-99. Tho accounting year, therefore, ended on 4-10-1942. A fresh deed of partnership was executed on 5.1. 1943, under which...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Wahid Bux and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All314
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a Government appeal against the acquittal of respondents Wahid Bux, Dori, Chandu, Badam, Devi and Buddha. 2. The respondents along with, several others were prosecuted for having committed dacoity armed with guns at the house of one Thakur Prasad in the night between 4th and 5th March 1918 in village Lahdaura, district Budaun. Fifteen persons wore prosecuted by the police. One of them was discharged by the Committing Magistrate. Out of fourteen who were committed to the Court of Session, only two, namely Mian Jan and Parshadi, who were caught on the spot, were convicted. The rest were acquitted. Out of the twelve acquitted persons, the Government has filed an appeal against the six respondents only. 3. That there was a dacoity at the house of Thakur Prasad in the night in question is not disputed. In this dacoity 20 or 25 dacoits took part. Some of them were armed with guns, some with spears and others with lathis. Property worth about Rs. 30,000 was looted. The...
Tag this Judgment!Rahmat Ali and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All338
ORDERMisra, J.1. Rahmat Ali and Rifaqat All, applicants in this criminal revision were convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Unnao of offences under Sections 308 and 323, Penal Code. The former was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under the first count, and under Section 323 to one month's rigorous imprisonment. Rifaqat Ali was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 308, Penal Code, and to fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, Penal Code, but he was given the benefit of Section 4, First Offenders Act, and was ordered to give two sureties of Rs. 1000 and a personal bond in like amount to appear and receive sentence, if necessary, within a period of one year. In appeal Rahmat Ali's conviction under Section 308, Penal Code, was altered to one under Section 325, Penal Code, but his conviction under Section 323 was left unaltered. His sentence was reduced from one year's rigorous imprisonment under the fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »