Allahabad Court September 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.
Seth Champalal Ramswarup, Beawar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR201(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - The Income-tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has in pursuance of the directions given by this court dated 11th of December, 1957, allowing an application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) submitted a statement of case and referred some questions of law to this court for answer. When the hearing of the case started before us a preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Gulati on behalf of the income-tax department (hereinafter referred to as the department) that this court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions of law referred to it and that it is the Rajasthan High Court alone which has jurisdiction in the matter. In order to appreciate this argument it is necessary to give certain dates. The Tribunal rejected the application of the assessee under section 66(1) of the Act on the 7th of July, 1950, whereupon the assessee made an application to this court under section 66(2) of the Act some time ...
Shiv Sahai and ors. Vs. Har Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All413
Dhavan, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal from the decision or the Additional Civil Judge, Farrukhabad dismissing their suit for recovery of damages against the defendants. The dispute relates to the value of mango fruit alleged to have been illegally plucked from a grove by ttie defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that they and the first defendant were the joint grove-holder of the grove, the plaintiffs' share being one half. They complained that in the year of the suit, there was a good crop of mango but the defendants misappropriated the whole of it which they were not entitled to do. The plaintiffs valued the crop at Rs. 220/- and claimed Rs. 110/- as the value of their share.2. The defendants contested the suit and raised a number of pleas in defence. They denied that the land was a grove and alleged that they have been cultivating it exclusively and had become sirdars after the abolition of zamindari. They also denied that they had plucked any mangoes from the trees standi...
Janki Koeri Vs. Jamuna Koeri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All535
Kailash Prasad, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal which arises from a suit for possession. The two Courts below found that Dhari Koeri, ancestor of plaintiffs and Sit Basant were the occupancy tenants of the holding in which the plot in suit was included and they granted an usufructuary mortgage of the plot in suit in favour of Rekha Koeri, predecessor-in-interest of defendants 1st set, in the year 1920. The Courts below, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession over the plot in suit on payment of the mortgage money to defendants 1st set within a specified time. 2. The present appeal has been filed by one of the successors-in-interest of the original mortgagee. One of the points raised by the appellant is that the mortgage of occupancy holding being void, the position of the defendant-appellant became that of a trespasser and he can be ejected, if at all, only by a suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act in the Revenue Court. The contention has no force. I...
Official Receiver, Jhansi Vs. Jugal Kishore Lachhi Ram Jaina, Hyderaba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All459
Mukerji, J.1. Although my learned brothers Jagdish Sahai and Dwivedi are agreed as to the result of this appeal, yet they have differed in regard to the reasons sustaining their respective conclusions on which they agree to a dismissal of the appeal.2 I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of both and I find myself in agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by my learned brothel Jagdish Sahai. I also find that I have little to add to what has already been said, except pointing out that by adopting the line of reasoning followed by my learned brother Jagdish Sahai equity was not being deployed to override law. There was, in my view, nothing in either the Contract Act or the Sale of Goods Act which compelled a Court to uphold the fraud practised in the instant case.3. I agree with the opinion of my learned brother Jagdish Sahai.Jagdish Sahai, J.4. I have read the opinion of my brother pwivedi and agree with his conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Ina...
J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR304(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - This statement of case has been submitted and a question of law referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in pursuance of an order passed by this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). The question of law is in the following words :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, there was an order of the Tribunal as contemplated by section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act read with rule 33(1) of the rules framed thereunder ?'According to the statement of the case, this question arises in the following circumstances :In respect of the assessment year 1945-46, the assessee, at whose instance this reference has been made, filed two appeals, one under section 33 of the Act and the other under section 14(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, to the Tribunal in respect of certain disallowances made by the Income-tax Officer and affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissi...
J.K. Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All22
Manchanda, J. 1. This is a case stated under Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 'hereinafter referred to as the Act' read with Section 66(1) of the IT. Act.2. The questions that have been referred are-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances 01 this case the Excess profits tax officer was right in Holding that the provisions of Section 8(8) were applicable in this case? 2. Whether an appeal challenging the validity of the application of the provisions of Section 8{8) by the excess profits tax officer would lie to the Board of Referees and not to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner? 3. The facts leading up to this petition are these-4. The assessee is a public limited company which was incorporated on 17-5-1943, the business having commenced on 10-10-1943. The assessee took over three businesses which were hitherto run by partnership firms. The first business taken over was that of the managing agency of J. K. Cotton . Kanpur from Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat on 1-10-1943. ...
Lala Ram Kishan Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR991(All)
BRIJLAL GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question which has been referred for the opinion of the court i :'Whether on the facts and in circumstances of this case the surplus realisation of Rs. 7,750 by the sale of 1,125 shares of the Soora Jute Mills Co. Ltd. was revenue income of the assessee liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act?'The facts giving rise to the reference ar : that in the assessment year, 1946-47, the assessee was assessed in the status of an individual. In that assessment a sum of Rs. 7,750 was included as the assessees share of the surplus realisation by the sale of 9,000 shares of the Soora Jute Mills Co. Ltd., which stood in the name of the Lala Shyamsunder Ji and out of which the assessee held 1,125 shares. It may be stated that 36,000 shares of Soora Jute Mills Co. Ltd., were purchased on April 20,1944, at the rate of Rs. 32 per share from Messrs. Mangani Ram Bangar & Co. of Calcutta as follow :1. Lala Ram Prasad...
Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR177(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - The question 'whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the profits of Rs. 2,994 and Rs. 2,997 could be taxed under section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ?' has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act in the following circumstances :The assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business of plying motor trucks and lorries on hire. It sells motor trucks and lorries which have outlived their utility and cannot be further hired. Accordingly on January 1, 1946, it sold two motor trucks, registered Nos. U. P. A. 1192 and 1193 at the profits of Rs. 2,994 and Rs. 2,997 respectively, i.e., for Rs. 2,994 and Rs. 2,997 plus their respective written down values. It has adopted the calendar year as the accounting or previous year; thus it made the profit of Rs. 5,991 on the very first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1947-48. It closed its b...
Juggilal Kamlapat (a Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR811(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922. The assessment years in respect of which the reference has been made are 1940-41, 1941-42, 1942-43, 1943-44, 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47. The assessees are a firm, Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat of Kanpur. In the account books of the assessee firm, there is an account styled as Kamlapat Ji Dharam Khata. The following amounts were credited as interest in this account in each of the assessment years noted below :YearRs.1940-4134,709.001941-4233,771.001942-4335,588.001943-4440,609.001944-4534,947.001945-4632,158.001946-4733,614.00The assessees claim that the balance in the Kamlapat Ji Dharam Khata account was utilised for the purpose of its business and was treated as a loan and as such the interest paid by the assessee firm to Kamlapat Ji Dharam Khata was business expenditure admissible under section 10...
Dr. A.K. Chatterji Vs. Dr. J.C. Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963All394
ORDERB. Mukerji, J.1. This is a petition by Dr. A. K. Chatterji under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus to be issued against respondents 1 to 4 directing them not to treat opposite-parties Nos. 5 to 10 as members of the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine, Agra University, Agra', and further directing the Chancellor respondent No. 4 to make his decision as contemplated under Section 35 of the -Agra University Act, 1926 'at the earliest' and till then not to let the meeting of the Faculty be held -- a meeting which has been called for the 17th September, 1962. There is yet another prayer tagged on to this generic prayer for a writ of mandamus, namely, a prayer to direct respondents 2 to 4 to constitute the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine of the Agra University after the appointments of Principal and teachers have been made in accordance with the Statute and till such appointments to direct the Ad Hoc Committee to function in respect of academic matters falling w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »