Allahabad Court April 1962 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.
Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR910(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question which has been referred to this court for opinion is :'Whether in computing the business profits of the assessee company for the calendar years 1945 and 1946 the contributions made by the assessee company to the Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. Employees Provident Fund under the rules and regulations of the fund prior to April 30, 1946, should be deducted under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The reference relates to the assessment years, 1946-47 and 1947-48, relevant to the previous years, the calendar years 1945 and 1946 for purposes of income-tax assessment and the chargeable accounting period, April 1, 1946, to December 31, 1946, for corresponding to the assessment year 1947-48, for purposes of business profits tax assessments.The assessee is a public limited company carrying on banking business. Some time prior to January 1, 1944, it decided to institute an employees...
J.K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR970(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - In this reference under section 66(1) the question which has been referred for the opinion of the court is :'Whether, on a true interpretation of clause (xv) of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the expenditure of Rs. 8,600 was not a permissible deduction ?'The question has arisen in the following circumstances :The assessee which is a public limited company incurred an expenses of Rs. 8,600 as fees of chartered accountants and lawyers who appeared for it before the Income-tax Investigation Commission. The proceedings in which they appeared related to earlier years but the payment was made in the assessment year in question, namely, 1953-54. The assessee claimed the amount as an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv). The Tribunal refused deduction on two grounds : (1) that an expenditure of this nature was not a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) and (2) that the payment was for services rendered in connection with the acco...
indermani Jatia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1156(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question which has been referred to this court for opinion is :'Whether the expenditure of Rs. 2,17,738 or any portion thereof was a permissible deduction within the meaning of section 10(2)(xv) or section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The facts giving rise to the reference lie within a narrow compass. One Rai Bahadur Gangasagar Jatia, who had income from business, dividends and property, etc., died issueless leaving the assessee, his widow, as his sole heir. Prior to his death he had executed a will in her favour. After his death during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question, namely, 1946-47, she took out letters of administration and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,17,738 including Rs. 2,13,000 spent on stamp duty. The amount of expenditure was not disputed by the department. In her assessment for the year in question the assessee claimed deduction of the amount un...
Ganga Singh and ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All201
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This order will be deemed to be a continuation of my order dated 18th September 1961 and the two orders together will constitute the judgment in this appeal. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal have been detailed in the previous order, but a very brief resume will not be out of place. In 1936 the ancestors of the plaintiffs-appellants entered into a transaction of sale and agreement to re-sell under two separate registered documents. By the first these ancestors sold certain plots of land to the four vendees for a sum of Rs. 2500/- and by the second the vendees agreed to reconvey the same property to the vendors if the sale pries was paid bach within ten years. The property was subject to pre-emption and one Misri Lal asserted this right successfully in the law courts. He stepped into the position of the vendors and obtained possession. Subsequently he transferred about half of the land to two persons, Shishpal Singh and Bhura Singh who are co-defen...
J. K. Woollen Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1123(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred to this court for opinion is :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to hold that the payment of the sum of Rs. 38,509 was an expenditure in the nature of capital and as such not admissible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act ?'The facts giving rise to the reference are : The assessee is a private limited company. It succeeded to the business of a partnership. The partnership business was started on May 1, 1944. From the very commencement of the business one J.P. Vaish was appointed its general manager and he continued to be the general manager of the partnership business until June 30, 1947. It may be stated that the accounting period of the partnership business ended every year on the 30th June. On July 8, 1947, Sri J.P. Vaish died. On July 12, 1947, his widow wrote a letter to the proprietors of the firm 'claiming' gratuity equal to the sal...
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited, Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR906(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question which has been referred to this court for opinion is :'Whether on the facts of the case the payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 35,000 has been rightly disallowed as capital expenditure within the meaning of section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The facts giving rise to the reference are : The assessee is public limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling cloth and other textile goods. The assessment year in question is 1949-50 corresponding to the accounting period ending December 31, 1948. The assessee contracted to purchase textile machinery from M/s. Lang Bridge Ltd. through their suppliers, M/s. W.H. Barady & Co. Ltd. (the machinery being called Lang Bridge Bleaching and Finishing Machinery) at an approximate value of Rs. 4,25,000. Similarly, the assessee contracted to purchase other sundry textile machinery from M/s. A.N. Sanyal & Sons of New Del...
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. Vs. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR901(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred to this court for opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the lump sum nazranas received by the assessee represented revenue receipts chargeable to income-tax ?'The reference arises out of the assessees assessment for three assessment years, namely, 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51. During these three years the assessee, as the holder of an impartible estate comprising of 33 villages, parcelled out certain pieces of land and leased out those parcels in perpetuity on certain terms and conditions. The lease was executed in a standard form which is appended as an annexure to the statement of the case. The form of lease contains the recital that lease was granted to the lessee for building purposes in perpetuity on payment of a certain fixed sum of money called nazrana or salami. It was a lump sum, not depending upon the area of the leased land. It was reali...
Ex-soldiers Motor Transport Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR913(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - At the instance of the Ex-soldiers Transport Co., Dehra Dun (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has submitted a statement of case and referred to us the following question of law for our opinion under section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether the sum of Rs. 10,000 received by the assessee by the sale of permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority authorising the assessee to ply vehicles on certain routes was revenue income liable to tax under the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee carries on the business of plying motor-buses, trucks and lorries and was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1950-51 in the status of an individual. In the accounts of the accounts of the assessee for the relevant year there were credit entire of Rs. 10,000. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to explain those entire. The as...
Mangali Vs. Chhakki Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All527; 1963CriLJ489
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 Sri Chhakki Lal filed their nomination papers for election to the post or Pradhan of Gaon Panchayat Sheora. An objection was raised against the nomination paper of the first respondent on the ground that he stood disqualified because he had been convicted of an offence under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act and had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- for that offence. It was contended that the offence was one involving moral turpitude. The objection was accepted and the nomination paper of the first respondent was rejected, the petitioner was, therefore declared elected unapposed. The first respondent then filed an election petition and contended that in the circumstances in which his conviction under Section 60 of the Excise Act had been recorded the offence did not involve moral turpitude and his nomination paper had, therefore, been wrongly rejected. The...
Dominion of India Vs. Central Aerating Gas Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All243
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. In this appeal against a decree awarding Rs. 3,300/- to the plaintiff as damages for causing wrongful destruction of the plaintiffs truck three questions have been raised by Sri Seth, learned counsel for the appellant: firstly, the suit is barred by limitation; secondly, the plaintiff is entitled, if at all, to get only Rs. 2,100//-; and thirdly, the plaintiff, being guilty of contributory negligence, is not entitled to any damages. 2. I propose to take up the question of limitation first. On that question the material facts, which cannot now be disputed, are that on July 19, 1946, at 3 a.m. the plaintiffs truck, laden with gas cylinders, reached the level Crossing No. 87, G. T. Road, Saharanpur; the gate of the level crossing was then closed for letting 3 U. P Frontier Mail pass from Saharanpur to Ambala; then the said train passed but the gate remained still closed; a few minutes thereafter a petrol driven lorry arrived at the scene and stood behind the plaintiff'...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »