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.
Jagannath Dalwala Vs. Bhola Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All258
J.N. Takru, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and order of the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge, Agra, dated the 29th of October 1959, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanding the case to that Court for a fresh trial in the light of the observations made in his judgment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, stated briefly, are as follows:3. The appellant instituted a suit against the respondents, in the Court of Judge Small Cause, for the recovery of Rs. 680/- as arrears of rent from them on the allegations that they were his tenants, in respect of a portion of the premises described in the plaint, on a monthly rental of Rs. 15/-, the tenancy starting from Badi 8 of each Hindi calendar month and terminating on Badi 7 of the following month. The respondents paid rent upto Katik Badi 7 Sambat 2007 but the rent for the subsequent period was not paid despite several demands. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 675/- as rent from Kartik ...
Abida Khatoon and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All260; 1963CriLJ724
Dhawan, J.1. This is a second appeal by Smt. Abida Khatoon and her husband Abdul Shakoor against the decision of the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Agra dismissing their suit for a declaration that they are Indian citizens not liable to be deported to Pakistan. In their plaint the appellants made the following allegations: They were born and brought up at Agra and their parents too were born there. They were citizens of India at the commencement of the Constitution and have continued to enjoy this status ever since. In February, 1950, both of them went on a visit to Pakistan but without any intention to migrate or settle there permanently. After staying in Pakistan for some time they were anxious to return to India and applied to the Refugee department of the Pakistan Government for repatriation to India under the Delhi agreement of 1950 (the so called Nehru-Liaqat Pact). Under that agreement the Governments of India and Pakistan had agreed to the return of the nationals who had fled to ...
M/S Jamnadas Brij Mohan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR233(All)
S.C. MANCHANDA J. - These are two references under sections 66(1) and 66(4) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The question of law which has been referred for the opinion of this court is :'Whether the purchase of goods (which are not required to undergo any further manufacturing or other process or treatment) by the Indian State branches of a resident assessee from merchants in British India for the purpose of sale thereof (either in Indian States or in British India) can be rightly regarded as one of the operations contemplated by section 42(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'Reference No. 71 relates to assessment year 1944-45 while Reference No. 77 relates to assessment year 1943-44.The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which was carrying on business of cloth at Ajmer. The assessee opened a branch in Kishangarh in an Indian State on the 23rd of October, 1941. This branch business was carried on in the name and style of Shyam Lal Ram Sarup. The relevan...
Municipal Board, Kanpur Vs. Janki Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All433; 1963CriLJ244
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal passed on 1-6-1960 by a Magistrate First Class of Kanpur. The respondent No. 1 holds a licence, for selling edible oils and runs his shop at Kanpur while respondent No. 2 is a salesman thereat. On the 21st of July, 1959, at 10-30 a. m. the Food Inspector, Kanpur, went to the shop and found respondent No. 1 Janki Prasad working there. In the shop was stored linseed oil also. The Food Inspector took 7 chs. of that oil as sample after paying 47 nP. to respondent No. 1 as the price of the sample demanded by that respondent. The Food Inspector gave a notice in writing to respondent No. 1 that the sample had been taken for analysis and in the presence of the said respondent divided the linseed oil purchased by him into three parts delivering one of it to respondent No. 1. One of the parts which like other parts was also sealed by the Food Inspector, was sent to the Public Analyst to U. P. Government for examination wh...
R. S. Radha Kishan Kapoor Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. and V. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR938(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - At the instance of the assessee, Radha Kishan Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), the following question of law has been submitted to us for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 45,000 was a capital expense and hence not admissible under section 10(2)(xv) ?'The case originally came up before a Bench consisting of R. N. Gurtu and B. Upadhya JJ., who called for a supplementary statement of the case, which having been received the reference has been put up before us for hearing. The facts as emanating from the statement of the case and relevant for our purpose are as follows : The assessee and his brother, Gauri Shanker Kapoor, constitute a registered partnership firm styled as Messrs. Hari Chand Kapoor and sons. This firms carried on canteen and contract business in the India Army. A partition took place between the brothers and out of seventeen contracts that th...
Samiullah Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All482
S.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a Second Appeal by samiullah against the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing his suit for a declaration that he is a citizen or India and for permanent injunction restraining the State of Uttar Pradesh from deporting him to Pakistan. Both the courts have held that they had no jurisdiction to try the case in view of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act react with Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. The plaintiff has now come to this Court in Second Appear. 2. The facts are these: In his plaint Samiullah alleged that he was born in the year 1911 in village Garhi Pukhta, in the district of Muzaffarnagar. His parents were Indians and he was married in his village and has two wives. His children were also born in his native village.He earned his living as a motor mechanic from time to time. During the years 1936-39 he served with M/s. Premier Motors at Dehradun but his services came to an end when the proprietor, Mr. Talbot, wound up his busines...
Nainital Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR540(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question which has been referred to us for opinion is :'Whether, on a true interpretation of section 10(1), section 10(2)(xi) and section 10(2)(xv) of the India Income-tax Act, the claims for the losses of Rs. 48,891 and Rs. 1,21,760 were permissible in the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 respectively ?'The facts giving rise to the reference may be shortly stated : The assessee is a banking company with its head office at Nainital and branches in different towns of Uttar Pradesh. One of the branches of the assessee was in Ramnagar. On June 11, 1951, there was a dacoity in the Ramnagar branch in which currency notes of the value of Rs. 1,06,000 and numerous ornaments and pieces of jewellery which had been pledged with the bank by some of its constituents had been taken away by the dacoits.The loss of Rs. 1,06,000 was claimed by the bank as a deduction in the year 1952-53. It was disallowed by the ...
Jagdish Prakash Kaushik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR212(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act.The question which has been referred to the court for opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made under section 34(1)(a) was legal and valid ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In its assessment for the assessment year 1947-48, certain items of cash credits amounting to Rs. 15,000 were included in its total income. The assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner took the view that the nature and source of these items of cash credits remained unexplained and as such the previous year for the amount of Rs. 15,000 was the financial year corresponding to the assessment year 1946-47. In this view he allowed the appeal. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 34 and subjected the amount of Rs. 15,000 to tax under section 34(1)(a) along with the amount of Rs....
The City Board, Mussoorie Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1214(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - At the instance of the City Board, Mussoorie (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), the following questions of law have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for our opinion :'1. Whether the licence to supply electrical energy to an extended area operated to extend the jurisdictional area of the assessee and as such the income rising from the supply of electrical energy to such extended areas was exempt under section 4(3)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act 2. Whether the City Board of Mussoorie was a local authority included in the category of person an envisaged in section 2(9) of the Indian Income-tax Act and whether the income accruing to the said City Board was liable to tax 3. Whether the administrator appointed by the U.P. Government under section 31(b) of the U.P. Municipalities Act after superseding the City Board, Mussoorie, was a local authority for the purpose of assessment under the Indian In...
J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR906(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This is a case referred to by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, for answering the following two questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Income-tax Officer in making a fresh assessment in pursuance of the Income-tax Act, could include the dividend income deemed to have been received by the assessee in pursuance of an order under section 23A of the Income-tax Act and which could not be included in the total income at the time of the original assessment ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessments made in pursuance of orders under section 31 of the Income-tax Act were not barred by limitation by virtue of the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act ?'The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows :The questions arise out of tree orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the three assessment years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The assessee is a co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »