Allahabad Court January 1964 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.
Ved Vyas Chawla Vs. the Income Tax Officer 'C' Ward and Anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All37; [1965]57ITR749(All)
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the levy of additional Surcharge According to the petitioner the additional Surcharge is hit by Articles 14 and 271 of the Constitution of India it is, also, according to him hit by Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution 2. Elaborating these grounds, Mr Copal Behari referred to Article 271, which contemplates according to him, additional income-tax in the shape of additional surcharge, which can be levied only once and not time and again calling it at one time ''Special Surcharge' and at another 'addtional Surcharge' in the present case, the in come-tax Officer determined the tax payable under Section 210 of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the payment of Rs. (108.64 nP as Income-tax, Rs. 264.32 nP Additional Surcharge, Rs. 50.77 nP Surcharge and Rs. 2.13 Special Surcharge totalling Rs 905.87 Np 3. The first question to be examined, there tore, ...
Sheikh Ghulam Maula Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All353
1. This and the connected petition are for certiorari to quash notifications issued under the land Acquisition Act on 17-3-1952, 7-4-1962 and 24-54962 and prohibition restraining the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow, from taking possession of certain plots of land. The petitioner is the lessee of a part of the land in dispute and the petitioner in the associated petition is the lessee of another part. The land in dispute is situate in a mohalla of Lucknow city on the bank of river Gomti. It is Nazoo land but was let out by the Municipal Board in 1940 in one case and in 1915 in the other case. One lease is for 90 years and the other is for 30 years but is renewable for the period of 90 years. The leases were for building purposes, and the petitioners were permitted to make shops of a particular design on the land leased out to them. They surrounded the land leiased to them with wooden boundaries and Put up constructions of pucca bricks for use as ...
Gaja and ors. Vs. Dasa Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All471
Gangeshwar Prasad, J.1. These three second appeals arise out of three suits between the same parties and involve the same questions of fact and law and they may, therefore, be disposed of by common judgment.2. The suits were filed in the revenue court for declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive sirdar of one of the disputed plots and a co-sirdar of the remaining three. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession but he prayed that the relief of possession may also be awarded to him in case he was found to be out of possession. The State Government and the Gaon Samaj, impleaded as defendants, remained absent and the suits were contested only by the other defendants, who denied the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that they were bhumidhars of the plots and were in possession as such. The suits were dismissed by the trial court and since the issue relating to bhumidhari rights, claimed by the contesting defendants, had been remitted to and decided by the Civil Court, appeals were...
Bhola Chaube Vs. Man Matun Chaube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All258
N.H. Beg, J. 1. THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a deed of adoption executed on 21st of November, 1941, by the plaintiff-respondent, acknowledging the adoption of defendant No. 2, was invalid and inoperative on the ground that it was obtained by fraud perpetrated By defendant No. 1 upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he was unable to manage his property and had, therefore, decided to appoint defendant No. 1 as his Nukhtaream by means of a deed. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1,taking advantage of his position, had obtained from the plaintiff what transpired, later on, to be a deed of adoption. The plaintiff also alleged that he had asked the defendants to get this deed cancelled, but, as they did not comply with this requirement, the plaintiff had to file his suit. The defendants pleaded that the deed of adoption was valid and executed after the performance of the necessary ceremonies without any fraud or undue influence. The p...
Harcharan Lal Vs. Director, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All379
ORDERN.U. Beg, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition Shri Harcharan Lal was appointed as a Tractor Driver temporarily on the 14th of July 1053 at the-Central Sugarcane Station Lucknow then under the Directorate of Indian Institute of Sugar Technology, situate at Kanpur. On the 1st of January, 1954 the Central Sugarcane Station at Lucknow became a separate department, and came to be known as the Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research under an independent Director. As a result of it, it came directly under the control of the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. On the 24th of October, 1960 a declaration was made under Rules 3 and 4 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter called the Rules) appointing the petitioner as Tractor Driver in a quasi permanent capacity with effect from the 1st of July, 1959. On the 6th of April. 1961 a communication was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agricul...
L. Kunji Lal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All457
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This is a statement of a case referred to this Court at the assessee's instance by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Tribunal has formulated the following question as one of law arising out of the statement:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sale proceeds of the bonus shares (received in respect of ordinary shares held by the assessee as a part of his stock in trade) is an income taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act?'.The connected I. T. R. No. 193 of 1955 is another statement of a case referred by the same Tribunal at another assessee's instance under Section 66(i) and the question of law arising out of it and referred by the Tribunal is:'Whether the sale proceeds of bonus shares which had been issued in respect of shares which formed part of the assessee's stock in trade of the share dealing business are liable to inclusion in the assessee's total incomes for the res...
Kunjilal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: [1964]52ITR27(All)
M.C. DESAI C.J. - This is the statement of a case referred to this court at the assessees instance by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Tribunal has formulated the following question as one of law arising out of the statemen :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sale proceeds of the bonus shares (received in respect of ordinary shares held by the assessee as a part of his stock-in-trade) is an income taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act?'The connected Income-tax Reference No. 193 of 1955 is another statement of a case referred by the same Tribunal at another assessees instance under section 66(1) and the question of law arising out of it and referred by the Tribunal i :'Whether the sale proceeds of bonus shares which had been issued in respect of shares which formed part of the assessees stock-in-trade of the share dealing business are liable to inclusion in the assessees total income ...
Rampur Distillery and Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR338(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This is a statement of a case referred under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 at the instance of an assessee inviting this courts answer to the following question :'Whether on a true interpretation of the Taxation Laws (Merged States) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1949, and sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the written down value of the assets of the assessee-company for the purpose of calculation of depreciation would be the book value of the assets worked out by the assessee or the original cost of the assets ?'The controversy is about the depreciation to be allowed to the assessee when determining its profits and gains from the business of manufacturing alcohol and other spirits for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54. The assessee is a company incorporated in the erstwhile Rampur State in 1943. Income-tax was introduced in Rampur State with effect from May 1, 1944, but on May 2, 1944, an ...
Har Prasad (Electric) Press Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All454; [1964(8)FLR174]; (1964)ILLJ717All
Pathak, J. 1. Our learned brother Seth dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the appellant, and it is urged before us that his decision is incorrect because the award was manifestly erroneous in law.2. It is contended that the application initialing conciliation proceedings was signed by an officer of the Press Workers Union and that the provisions of Section 6-1(3) prohibited the making of that application by that officer inasmuch as on the date when the application was made the Union had not been registered for a period of two years. We are of the opinion that this contention cannot be accepted. The provisions of Section 6-1 provide for representation of the parties in proceedings before a Board, Labour Court or Tribunal. The Board has been defined by Section 2(d) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes act as a Conciliation Board constituted under Clause (d) of Section 3. According to the order contained in notification No. 738-ST (XXXVI-A-112-ST) 1957 dated December 31, 1957, whi...
Vidya Sagar Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All356
ORDERN.U. Beg, J.1. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition Vidya Sagar was confirmed on the post of Supervisor Kanungo from the 1st of April, 1952. On the 24th of October, 1958, he was appointed as an officiating Naib Tahsildar. On the 12th of December, 1962, the Board of Revenue which is the opposite party in this writ petition issused a list of 81 officiating Naib Tahsildars who were reverted to their substantive post of Supervisor Kanungos, and, in their place, appointed 82 Supervisor Kaungos who were declared eligible for appointment as officiating Naib Tahsildars. The petitioner was one of the persons who was reverted to the substantive post of Supervisor Kanumgo, and was not put in the list of those Supervisor Kanungos who were declared eligible for appointment as officiating Naib Tahsidars. A copy of the said order is Annexure 1.On the 13th of December, 1962, the opposite party Issued another order giving a list of 54 Supervisor Kanungos who were declared as permanent Naib Tahsild...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »