Allahabad Court March 1961 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.
Chandulal Surajmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR448(All)
V. BHARGAVA J. - The following four questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion :'(1) Whether there is any material for the finding of the Tribunal that the businesses were carried on by a firm consisting of all the members of the family as from July 16, 1942 ?(2) Whether there is any material for the finding of the Tribunal that the businesses were discontinued by the firm on March 12, 1943 ?(3) Whether the firm having discontinued its business on March 12, 1943, had the option to elect the period from the date of the starting of the business July 16, 1942, to the date when the accounts were closed to profit (July 4, 1943), as its previous year under section 2 (11) (i) (c) of the Act ?(4) Whether the previous year of the assessee should be taken as the period July 16, 1942, to July 4, 1943, or July 16, 1942, to March 12, 1943, under section 2 (11) (i) (c) of the Act in the circumstances of the case ?'The Tribunal in the statement of the cas...
Simbholi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR125(All)
BHARGAVA J. - The questions of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion are :(1) 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case and on a true interpretation of section 108 of the U.P. District Board Act, 1922, the amount of Rs. 2,000 paid as District Board tax is not an expenditure admissible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the assessees contribution of Rs. 800 to the local school is not an expenditure admissible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act ?(3) Whether the Tribunal can refuse to entertain a ground of appeal when that ground was not raised before the Income-tax Officer nor before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'The assessee is a limited company which was running a sugar factory within the area falling in the jurisdiction of the District Board of Meerut during the previous year relating to the assessment year 1950-51. The company earned profits and...
State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. Vs. Sudarshan Deo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All358
FACTS 1. This was a special appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh, against an order of Nigam, J. of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition of Sri Sudarshan Deo, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to fix his seniority in the graded list of special Subordinate Educational Service, U. P., on the basis of the original date of this substantive appointment in that cadre, that is from March I, 1941. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench, consisting of R. Dayal and B. Upadhya, JJ. The Hon'ble Judges having differed in their opinions they referred two questions to a third Judge for his opinion. Thus, the matter came before M. C. Desai, J. who delivered the following opinion :Desai, J. The following two questions have been referred for my opinion :'1. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, this Court should issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution dir...
L.H. Sugar Factory Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1961
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ676All
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner carried on the business of manufacturing and selling sugar. It is alleged that the petitioner started the practice of giving to his permanent workmen two days' holiday after the cessation of crushing season. The holidays were called as closure holidays. Later the petitioner increased the number of holidays to three. Sometime in 1957 there arose a dispute between the petitioner and its workmen in regard to the closure holidays. The State of Uttar Pradesh referred this dispute for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. The tribunal gave its award on the dispute on 14 April 1958. A copy of that order is annexure a to the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. In the seasonal year 1957-58, the petitioner declared 15, 16 and 17 May 1958 as closure holidays for all workmen who were on the petitioner's muster roll on 11 May 1958. The employees of the petitioner raised the dispute that since the crushing season of the petitioner ...
Dujai Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ627
ORDERA.N. Mulla, J.1. This is a revision filed against an order of Sri H.A. Safwi Temporary Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri dated the 15th of October, 1960 by which he directed that the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur should enquire into the complaint filed by one Banwari against the applicant under Section 211 I.P. Code or he should transfer it to some other competent Magistrate.2. Before making any comments I propose to give the relevant facts. Dujai, the applicant, filed a report on the 11th of January, 1959 against one Daya Shanker and several others under Section 302/149 I.P.C. Code and some other penal provisions. When this report was investigated the police found that Daya Shanker was falsely implicated as he was in the police lock-up at the relevant time and could not have participated in the crime. The police however, prosecuted the others named by Dujai. The case came for trial before Sri K. N. Prasad, Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, and he acquitted all the accused person...
Chhotey Lal Kishan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR490(All)
UPADHYA J. - This reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, raises the question as to whether the appeal filed in the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the assessee was invalid.In the array of parties as shown in the memorandum of appeal filed by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, was mentioned as the respondent, and at the hearing of the appeal an objection was taken that this was not in accordance with the requirements of rule 14 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules which requires that the Income-tax Officer concerned should be made a respondent, and the appeal was therefore not a proper appeal at all. This objection prevailed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The relevant facts as stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the original statement of the case and in the supplementary statement which has been submitted appear to be that in the memorandum of the appeal the Appellate Assistant Comm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›