Allahabad Court April 1960 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.
Chhail Behari Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR696(All)
BHARGAVA, J. - The question referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether the assessee in each case is entitled to a deduction of the sum of Rs. 6,688 being interest paid during the relevant previous year on money borrowed to buy shares in the Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd., which shares yielded no income, from his other income, profits and gains, in order to arrive at his correct taxable income ?'The facts of this case are very brief and simple. Both the assessees were partners in a firm Shiam Lal Chiman Lal. They earned incomes from the firm as also from some property and as interest on deposits made by them as a Hindu undivided family, viz., Shiam Lal Chiman Lal. From the firm each of these assessees borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 to buy shares in the Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. The shares of the Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd., were actually purchased by them but during the relevant previous year no dividends were received by them on these shares. They however had to pay a sum of Rs. 6,688 eac...
Govind Ram Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All600
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. This petition and eight other petitions Nos. 72, 73 and 77 to 81 and 87, all of 1960 are directed against the following order, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow, ordering thereby to include certain additional conditions-in the licences for cinematograph exhibitions which have been granted to the various petitioners:-'The following additional conditions have been imposed in the Cinematograph Licence by the Government. The local exhibitors are hereby directed to comply with them strictly with effecth from April 1, 1960: (1) That not more than three shows should be held between 3 p. m. and 12-30 a. m. on any working day. No show to be held before 31 p. m. or after 12-30 a. m. without the specific permissionof the Licensing Authority to be taken in advance. (2) There should be no restriction on the number of shows held cm Sundays and holidays provided that the last show does not extend beyond 12-30 a. m. (3) No person below 18 years of age should ...
Manoharlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. and V. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR791(All)
BHARGAVA, J. - The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion is :'Where an unregistered firm is assessed and income-tax is recovered from the partners in it, is the tax recovered from a partner in proportion to his share in its income to be regarded as tax paid by him or on his behalf or treated as paid on his behalf in excess of the amount with which he is properly chargeable under the Income-tax Act, so as to entitle him to a refund under section 48 (1) of the difference between the tax proportionate to his share and the tax to which his proportionate share is the income would have been chargeable if he had been assessed on that sum in his individual capacity ?'The assessee was a partner in the firm Messrs. Raghunandan Prasad Manohar Lal, which was assessed for the assessment year 1945-46 as an unregistered firm. The income of the firm was assessed at Rs. 47,755 and the tax determined on this income was Rs. 15,588- 8-0. The amount of tax so determined was...
Behari Lal LaxminaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All129; [1960]39ITR649(All)
V. Bhargava, J.1.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether, the filing of the memorandum of appeal on the prescribed form and in triplicate is mandatory or is mere matter of procedure not affecting limitation? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal to the Tribunal was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the admission of the revised memo, of appeal ex parte after the period of limitation under Rule 13 of the Tribunal Rules amounted to condonation of the delay and such order is not liable to be challenged by the Department at the time of the hearing of the appeal?' , The facts, as they appear from the statement of the case, are that an appeal by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated the 7th of May,. 1949, and the copy of that appellate order was served on the assessee on the 11th of May, 1949. A memo of appeal against that order of the A...
Dr. Sir Syed Raza Ali Khan Bahadur Nawab of Rampur Vs. Income Tax Offi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All280
V. Bhargava, J. 1. His Highness the Nawab of Rampur has filed these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the assessment of his income for the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 under the Indian Income-tax Act, iN the petitions, various grounds were taken for challenging the validity of assessment to income-tax of the income of the petitioner, but the learned Advocate-General, who argued these petitions before us, confined himself to only three points, so that we need deal with those three points only.2. The first point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was the ruler of an independent State upto the 30th of June, 1949, and the State of Rampur was merged in the Indian Union by the Rampur Merger Agreement dated the 15th of May, 1949, whereunder a guarantee was granted that:'the Nawab shall continue to enjoy the same personal rights, privileges, immunities, dignities and titles which he would have enjoyed had this agreement no...
N.C. Agarwal Vs. Krishan Lal Mehra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All104
Dayal, J.1. The following two questions have been referred for decision to us:'(1) Can a District Magistrate under Section 7(2) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III of 1947) order the proprietor landlord to let a portion of the accommodation to the person who occupied it as a sub-tenant of the tenant-in-chief after the tenant-in-chief has been ejected and the landlord has been ordered to let the entire accommodation to a new tenant and the new tenant and the landlord have entered into a contract of tenancy with respect to the whole house? (2) Can the new tenant object to the subsequent order of allotment in favour of the previous sub-tenant if he (the new tenant) had not entered into procession of the portion of accommodation allotted to the sub-tenant?' 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the proprietor of premises No. 37/52, Gilis Bazar, Kanpur let them to Gauri Shanker Bhargava and obtained a decree of ejectment against his tenant, This decree was ex...
Ram Jatan Vs. Chandra Bali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All746
ORDERR.N. Gurtu, J.1. In this case a pronote was executed in favour of the applicant. It was a demand pronote. In answer to the suit thereon the defendants alleged that collaterally to the advance of the money and the execution of the promissory note there had been an agreement whereunder it had, in effect, been agreed that payment would slot be upon demand, but that the sum advanced would be liquidated out of the usufruct of certain plots which were to be handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff. The learned Small Cause Courts Judge has come to the conclusion that the consideration of the pronote has been discharged out of the usufruct of the plots whichwere put in possession of the plaintiff for threeyears. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged before me that oral evidence in respect of the collateral agreement was inadmissible, because the effect o admitting that evidence is that the terms of the pronote, which is the basis of the suit, would stand varied. Before ...
Trilok Chand Vs. C.N. Srivastava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All88; 1961CriLJ202
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The applicant is the owner of a cinematograph; he gave exhibitions by means of it in a building not licensed under the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act (Act 3 of 1956) and was prosecuted under Section 8 of the Act for infringement of the provisions of Section 3. He was convicted on 26-2-1958 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- and was 'further sentenced under the above sections in the case of continuing offence to a fine of Rs. 100/- for each day during which the offence shall continue'. This judgment was passed against him by Sri K.C. Sinha, a first class Magistrate. The applicant filed an appeal which was dismissed and the judgment was confirmed.He did not come up in revision against that judgment. Since the applicant was further sentenced to a daily fine Sri C.M. Srivastava, successor of SriK.C. Sinha, got an enquiry made from the Inspector who reported that the applicant, continued giving exhibitions by means of a cinematograph upto 31-3-58. Consequently on 24-...
Baba Khalil Ahamad Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All715; 1960CriLJ1528
Oak, J.1. This is an application by Baba Khalil Ahmad under Section 99-B, Cr. P. C. for setting aside an order of the State Government under Section 99-A, Cr. P.C.for the forfeiture of six books written by the applicant.2. The applicant has filed two affidavits in support of his application. According to these affidavits, there is a consensus of opinion of Muslim Ulemas that, Yasid, son of Muawiya was the chief perpetrator of Karbala. In November 1952, a handbill was published in Benaras describing Yasid as one entitled to be admitted to heaven. In other pamphlets Muawiya was praised and was represented as a leader of Hanafi Muslims. The applicant is a Sunni Musalmari of Hanafi sect. He considered it his duty to dispel doubts and misunderstanding about the position' of Yasid and Muawiya in Muslim history. With the object, the applicant wrote the six books, which were subsequently forfeited by the State Government. The applicant never intended to wound or outrage the religions feelings ...
Mir Suba Hari Bhakta Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Dehra Dun.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR617(All)
BHARGAVA, J. - By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, after incorporation of the amendment which was sought by the petitioner, the main relief sought is the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated February 23, 1959, passed by the opposite party, the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Dehra Dun. This order of assessment relates to the assessment year 1950-51. For that assessment year no notice under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act was issued to the petitioner. A general notice under section 22(1) had been issued as usual. Some time at the end of the year 1954, the Income-tax Officer sought the permission of the Commissioner of Income-tax to take action under section 34 of the Income-tax Act against the petitioner. Before, however, any proceedings under that provision of law could be initiated, the petitioner, on January 1, 1955, filed a return of his income in respect of the assessment year 1950-51. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »