Allahabad Court March 1957 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.
The British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Excess Prof ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All826; [1958]33ITR826(All)
V. Bhargava, J. 1. In these two cases a consolidated statement of the case has been submitted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after framing one question which covers the points raised in both the cases. The question is: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the amounts of Rs. 6,15,000/- for the Chargeable accounting period from 1-1-1943 to 31-12-1-9.43, and of Rs. 3,87,400/-, for the chargeable accounting period from 1-1-1944 to 31-12-1944, were rightly disallowed under Rule 12(1) of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act?'The statement of the case shows that, during the two chargeable accounting periods in question, the assessee paid to its directors in addition to the prescribed fee of Rs. 1,800/- per annum, various sums of money as commission calculated at a fixed rate of the profits earned by the assessee. The total sum thus paid to addition to the prescribed fee in the first chargeable accounting period in question was Rs. 18,61,800/- whereas, in the second...
Laraiti Devi Vs. Sia Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All820
Srivastava, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision. She filed a suit against the defendant, now opposite party, for the recovery of Rs. 8497/-. On the date fixed for final hearing of the case, a compromise purporting to have been arrived at between the parties was filed in Court. The compromise was signed by the vakil for the plaintiff, the defendant himself and the defendant's counsel. The compromise was put up before the Court and was duly verified on behalf of the plaintiff by her counsel and by the defendant personally. The Court on 30-1-51 passed an order in these terms:'Parties file compromise. Order The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise, 35B which shall be part of the decree.' 2. A formal decree was drawn up and was signed on 5-2-51. On 9-2-51 the defendant filed an implication headed as an application under Section 151 Civil P. C., in which he alleged that the plaintiff's son had persuaded him to sign the compromise by practising fraud and misrepresentatio...
Shri Ram Jha Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All472
V. Bhargava, J.1. These two references arise out of proceedings for assessment of income-tax of Pt Shri Ram Jha, who was assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. Pt. Shri Ram Jha died during the pendency of these references in this Court and is now represented by Dr. Krishna Ram Jha, who succeeded as Karta of the family. The proceedings relate to the two assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The Hindu undivided family included within it the three brothers Pt. Shri Rani Jha, Dr. Krishna Ram Jha and Mr. Hari Ram Jha. Their father had purchased certain shares out of which 100 shares of the Burakar Goal Company of the face value of Rs. 51 each were inherited by these three brothers in the year 1914, on the death of their father. The Hindu undivided family also purchased 100 further shares of the same Company on the 21st September 1921.During the previous year corresponding -to the assessment year 1947-48, the 200 shares of Burakar Coal Company were sold at the rate of Rs. 62-12 ...
Shri Ram Jha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR987(All)
BHARGAVA, J. - These two references arise out of proceedings for assessment of income-tax of Pt. Shri Ram Jha, who was assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. Pt. Shri Ram Jha died during the pendency of these references in this Court and is now represented by Dr. Krishna Ram Jha, who succeeded as karta of the family. The proceedings relate to the two assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The Hindu undivided family included within it the three brothers, Pt. Shri Ram Jha, Dr. Krishna Ram Jha and Mr. Hari Ram Jha. Their father had purchased certain shares out of which 100 shares of the Burakar Coal Company of the face value of Rs. 51 each were inherited by these three brothers in the year 1914, on the death of their father. The Hindu undivided family also purchased 100 further shares of the same company on the 21st September, 1921. During the previous years corresponding to the assessment year 1947-48, the 200 shares of Burakar Coal Company were sold at the rate of Rs. 62-12-...
Ram Prasad Seth Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All411; (1957)IILLJ172All
ORDERMehrotra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the orders dated the 13th July, 1955 and 4th of November, 1955 be quashed and further for a writ of mandamus commanding the State of U. P. to dispose of the petitioner's applications dated the 24th April, 1955 and 4th August, 1955 in accordance with the personal law as laid down in the Dharam Shastras as the provisions of Sections 5, 9, 10 and 13 and other provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are ultra vires of the Constitution particularly when they debar the petitioner to exercise hia fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.The reliefs which I have quoted above on the face of it appear to be very widely worded but the direction or the orders which the petitioner really asks this Court to issue will be clear from the facts which have been set out in the affidavit filed along with this petition and are mentioned below.2. The petitioner passed the examination of the Civil Engineerin...
Mohammad Ismail Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All487
ORDERM.L. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The rights in fisheries, which previously vested in the zamindars, came to be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh by virtue of a notification issued under Section 4 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 30th June 1952. The State Government transferred some of these rights to the Land Management Committees or Gaon Panchayats of the Villages. These rights are auctioned sometimes by the Land Management Committees and sometimes by the Gaon Panchayats directly or through officers of the Government.The District Magistrate of Etawah, as the District Planning Officer, notified the sale of fishery rights in some of the rivers by means of a notification published in Hindi, a copy of which has been filed along with the original affidavit. It was notified that fishery rights in question would be sold by auction at 11 a.m. on 24th September 1956 for the period 1st October 1956 to 30th Septembe...
Kedar Nath Vs. S.N. Misra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All484
Mootham, C.J.1. The petitioner and the second respondent were candidates for the Office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Bahua, in Tahsil Fatehpur, at an election held on the 37th December 1955, under the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (herein referred to as the Act). The petitioner was declared elected. Thereupon the second respondent filed an election petition challenging the validity of the former election. The petition was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur.2. On the 1st March 1956, during the pendency of that petition, the State Government sent a demi-official letter No. A-414/2/A-1956 to all District Magistrates. That letter read as follows:''I am directed to say that reports received by Government indicate that a considerable number of election petitions arising out of the recent elections to Gaon Panchayats have been filed in the Courts of Sub-Divisional Officers concerned. It is imperative both from the point of view of efficiency and administrative des...
Sir Padampat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR33(All)
The following question has been referred to this Court for opinion in compliance with and order passed by this Court under section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act read with section 66(2) of the Income-tax Ac :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Excess Profits Tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 75,000 was income from business.'The facts stated by the Tribunal show that the question of adding an amount as income of the assessee from an undisclosed source arose first in connection with the assessment of income-tax for the assessment year 1940-41 and the assessment of the excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting period 1st September, 1939, to 7th April, 1940. In that year the assessee was first assessed for the purpose of income-tax and the assessment being a best judgment assessment after applying section 13(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Officer estimated a sum of Rs. 75,000 as secreted income of the assessee from...
Shanti Prasad and ors. Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All402
Srivastava, J.1. This application in revision has been referred to a Full Bench in order to secure an authoritative decision on the question whether when determining the valuation of a suit for possession of land, for purposes of jurisdiction it is necessary to take into account the value of garden and building which stand on the land.2. The facts so far as they are necessary for our present purpose are not in dispute. Chaudhary Baldep Singh was the owner of the properties mentioned in lists 'A' & 'B' of the plaint. The property in list 'A' consists of 13 bighas 6 biswas pokhta of zamindari land, while the property in list 'B' consists of a house. Chaudhary Baldeo Singh died in 1901 leaving a widow, Srimati Parbati. She transferred the land and the house in dispute to the predecessor of the defendants. After her death, the plaintiff Chaudhary Mahabir Singh filed a suit for possession over the land and the house on the ground that he was the nearest reversioner of Chaudhary Baldeo Singh...
Kashi Ram Kanhiya Lal Vs. Commr. of Income Tax United Provinces
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All485
V. Bhargava, J. 1. The assesses Pannalal is an individual who was also the Karta of a Hindu undivided family known as Kanshi Ram Kanhaiyalal. The family was earning income from various sources including, commission from Messrs. J. K. Distributors Kanpur. The whole income of the family including this commission was assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family up to the assessment year 1941-42. When the assessment for the year 1942-43 came up, it was claimed by the Hindu undivided family that the agency for the jute mills which was held by the family had been terminated and instead Pannalal in his individual capacity had become the commission agent of Messrs. J. K. Distributors Kanpur, so that the commission earned was the individual income of Pannalal and not the income of the Hindu undivided family. This plea was accepted and the commission, received from Messrs. J. K. Distributors Kanpur was not included in the assessment of the income of the Hindu undivided family. Pannalal a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »