Allahabad Court April 1953 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.
Padampat Singhania Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P. and Ajmer-merwara, L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All773; [1953]24ITR141(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. A number cf references, some under the Income-tax Act and others under the Excess Profits Tax Act, have been lumped up together and numbered as above. During the course of argument, with the consent of learned counsel, we found it necessary to number the cases separately and Miscellaneous Case No. 139 of 1948, was confined only to the reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act in Reference Application No. 226 of 1947-48 before the appellate Tribunal, which related to the income of the firm Harishankar Gopal Hari.2. The question referred to us in this reference is as follows:'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the income of Gopal Hari, a minor member of the Hindu undivided family of Sir Padampat Singhania arising from Share and interest on deposits in the firm of M/s. Hari Shankar Gopal Hari represents the income of the Hindu undivided family liable to assessment in the hands of Sir Padampat Singhania as its Karta?'The facts as they appear from the Statement of...
The State Vs. Pyarey Mohan Lal Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All694
Mukerji, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the State against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow holding that by virtue of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 46 of 1952), he had no jurisdiction to continue the trial of the case. Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952 is in these words : '7(1) Notwithstanding anything contained inthe Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act 5of 1898) or in any other law the offencesspecified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be triableby Special Judges only. ' 2. Every offence specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government. 3. When trying any case, a Special Judge may also try any offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Pro...
Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Shop, E.i. Rly. Vs. Mahabir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All132
Misra, J.1. This appeal arises out of a case for compensation under Section 3, Workmen's Compensation Act. The sole point which requires determination in the appeal is whether the accident which occurred on 22-5-49, in the railway yard at Lucknow and resulted in the loss of both legs of the respondent Mahabir, a machine man employed in the Carriage and Wagon Shops of the East Indian Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow, arose 'out of and in. the course of his employment' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act.2. The facts are no longer in dispute. Mahabir lives in village Mahmudpur which is close to Malhaur railway station on the East Indian Railway. He used to come free of cost to Lucknow junction every morning from Malhaur along with other employees in a workmen's special provided by the --railway and proceed after crossing the lines to the Alambagh Workshop which is at a distance of about a mile from the junction across the railway yard. This was a somewhat shorter route and it was taken ...
Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All558
Malik, C.J. 1. This is an application under section 11(2) (b) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (No. XV of 1048). The order of the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U. P. was passed on 29-11-1950. The applicant then made an application under Section 11 that certain questions may be referred to this Court for decision. This application was dismissed by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U. P. on 20-8-1951. The office made a report that the application was beyond time and that it should have been filed by 19-9-1951. This office report was made on two grounds: firstly, that there was no provision in the U. P. Sales Tax Act for exclusion of the time taken in obtaining copies of the relevant orders and, secondly, that the application should have been filed within thirty days of the order of the Revising Authority refusing to refer a case to this Court and not within thirty days from the date of the service of the notice of such order. The applicant had claimed that the notice of the order was served on t...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Firm Vishudh Ghee Vyopar Mandal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All689
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. and also Article 227 of the Constitution. It arises in the following circumstances : 2. The opposite party, Firm Vishudh Ghee Vyopar Mandal, filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,90,423/6/- as the price of ghee supplied to the applicant, the Union of India, for damages for breach of a contract and for refund of the security deposited by it with the Union of India. 3. The suit was resisted by the applicant the Union of India, on the ground that the opposite party had supplied adulterated ghee and the adulteration was brought about by fraud practised by the opposite party on the Union of India and the opposite party was not entitled to the money claimed. 4. It appears that prior to the suit there was some investigation by the Special Police Establishment created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946): into the matter. The Special ...
Dwarka Prasad Sheokaran Das, Kanpur Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P., Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All123; [1953]24ITR410(All)
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act in which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for our decision:'('a) Whether the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in assessment proceedings are relevant for the purpose of deciding the penalty proceedings; and (b) If so, whether they operate as 'res judicata'?' 2. The assesses in this case is a firm consisting of four partners. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1943-44, the Income-tax Officer held that income to the extent of Rs. 17,815/15/3 had been concealed by the assessee in his returns and added this sum when calculating the income liable to be assessed to tax. On 9-11-1944, the Income-tax Officer also issued a notice under Section 28(1)(c), Income-tax Act calling upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied against him. The assessee, on 16-11-1944, gave his explanation but no fresh evidence was adduced in sup...
Daya Shanker Vs. Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All622
Malik, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 24 Sub-section (4), U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 (Act 3 of 1949). Sub-section (4) of Section 24 provides that:'If the Board reject the application under Sub-section (2) or refuse to state the case on such application, the assessee may within three months of the communication of the order under Sub-section (3) apply to the High Court and the High Court may, if it is not satisfied about the correctness of the decision of the Board, require the Board to state the case and refer it and on receipt of such requisition the Board shall state and refer the case to the High Court.' The only point that the Board was called upon to consider was whether the applicant had filed his return within time. Learned counsel has contended that the Board as well as the assessing authority were in error inasmuch as they thought that the period within which the return was to be made was thirty days but the period really was forty-five days. The fact...
P.C. Dwadash Sherni and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P. and V. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All693; [1953]23ITR432(All)
ORDER1. The question referred to us for decision under Secton 66 (1), Income-tax Act, runsas follows :'Whether, in the proceedings under Section 28, an assessee is entitled to an opportunity to prove either that he had no income liable to tax or that his income liable to tax is less than the income on which it has been finally assessed under Section 23 (4)?'The Question does not clearly bring out the point In controversy between the parties. It was not the contention of the assessee that, in an appeal against the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 28, Income-tax Act it could have the assessment made under Section 23 (4) of the Act re-opened but its contention was that it should have been given an opportunity, only for purposes of imposition of penalty, to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on it. That is what the income-tax Appellate Tribunal meant when they referred the question to us for opinion but they have not clearly brought out what they meant. The a...
Jethamal Sada Sukh Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All697; [1953]23ITR443(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act in which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions for our decision :'1. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the mere fact that the Income-tax Officer treated the income of 13 months and 5 days as the income of the previous year of 12 montlis ending Kartik Samvat 2000 made the entire assessment proceedings 'ultra vires' although the Tribunal in appeal excluded the income of one month five days from the assessment? 2. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the date of succession for purposes of Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act is the date of actual succession viz. 1-11-41 as fixed in the order passed under Section 25A(1) or the date on which the order is actually passed during the assessment year 1944-45? 3. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the relief under Section 25 (4) was open to the applicant in the assessment year 1944-45? 2. In this reference the relevant a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›