Allahabad Court April 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.
Smt. Kesho Bai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR426(All)
PATHAK J. - The assessee, Smt. Kesho Bai, was a partner in two firms, M/s. Ramprasad Prem Kumar and M/s. Gopal & Co. Her son, Vinod Kumar, who was a minor at the time, was admitted to the benefits of partnerships in the two firms. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, the Income-tax Officer included the share of the profits falling to the minor in the assessment of the assessee, and justified the inclusion by reference to the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. An appeal by the assessee contesting the inclusion of the share of the profits was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was also unsuccessful. At the instance of the assessee the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court :'Whether the word individual occurring in section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act means and includes male or both male and female ?'There was controve...
Ram Nath Ram Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR777(All)
M. C DESAI C.J. - The question that this court is called upon to answer in this reference is as follows :'Whether in the circumstances and on the facts stated above the sum of Rs. 28,000 was liable to assessment under the Excess Prof its Tax Act ?'The facts that emerge from the statement are these : The assessee is a firm carrying on business and the question is of assessing it to the excess profits tax for the assessment year 1946-47. The chargeable accounting period is October 17, 1944, to November 4, 1945. During assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act the Income-tax Officer discovered an entry of Rs. 28,000 credited in the business accounts of the assessee in the name of Narain Das. The Income-tax Officer treated it as the assessees income 'from undisclosed source' and included it in its assessable income. It was included in its income also for the purpose of excess profits tax. The only question raised by it during the assessment pro ceedings was whether it was its income ...
R. B. Lachman Das Mohanlal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR315(All)
R. S. PATHAK J - The assessee is a firm consisting of six partners. It carried on business in the manufacture and sale of sugar, molasses, confectionery and also in the extraction and sale of oils. It owned a sugar mill. On January 21, 1948, the business was transferred as a running concern by the assessee to a private limited company, R. B. Lachmandas Mohanlal and Sons, Ltd., which was incorporated the previous day. On the date on which the company was incorporated the assessee entered into an agreement to sell the business to the company, and on January 21, 1948, a sale deed was executed. Under the terms of the sale deed, the consideration for the land, buildings, machinery, plant and other assets was determined at Rs. 30,00,000. The original cost of the assets, on which depreciation was allowed to the assessee under the Income-tax Act, was Rs. 10,40,742 and the written down value of these assets was Rs. 5,34,185.During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1949-50 (the ...
Lal Girjesh Bahadur Pal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR167(All)
The judgment of the court was delivered byR. S. PATHAK J. - This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The Madho Kanhaiya Mahesh Gauri Sugar Mills Ltd., Munderwa, is a private limited company. The original subscribers to the memorandum of association became the first directors of the company, by virtue of article 74 of the articles of association, and were entitled to hold that office for life. The qualification for being a director was, by article 75, the holding of atleast 12 shares in the company. The life directors subscribed Rs. 8 lakhs out of Rs. 11 lakhs which represented the nominal capital of the company. Under article 78, the first directors were also to be the managing directors of the company. The remuneration of the managing directors was fixed by article 78, at 15% of the profits of the company, to be apportioned between them according to their respective shareholdings.The assessee is a Hindu undivide...
Jagarnath Ram Vs. Mohammad Yusuf Abbasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All266
Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal from the decision of the Civil Judge, Ghazipur confirming a decree for his ejectment and recovery of arrears ofrent from him. The plaintiff-respondentsMohammad Yusuf Abbasi and others alleged that they were the owners of the house and the defendant-appellant Jagarnath Ram their tenant on a rent of Rs. 20/- per month from the year 1951; that the defendant appellant had not paid any rent from 1-12-1953 till the date of the suit; that he had been served with a notice demanding rent and terminating his tenancy but bad not paid the rent; hence the suit. The appellant admitted the tenancy but alleged that the rent was Rs. 3/- and not Rs. 20A per month; that no rent was due as it had been adjusted against the price of goods purchased by tne plaintiffs from the appellant's shop and tne expenses incurred by him on repairs of the house. He also contended that the notice of demand and the termination of tenancy was not in accordance with law.2. The tr...
Gur Prasad Satsangi Vs. State of Uttar Pardesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1964
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ374All
D.D. Seth, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts, as contained in the petition, are that in September 1947 the petitioner was appointed a Judicial Magistrate by the State Government under a scheme framed for the separation of Executive from Judiciary in this State and under which the State Government created a new cadre of Judicial Officers, The petitioner along with 59 other persons out of the cadre of Judicial Magistrates and Revenue Officers was confirmed in the new cadre of Judicial Officers on 1 April. 1951, In the year 1953-54 the Stats Government evolved a scheme for transferring some of the permanent members of the cadre of Judicial Officers to the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) in public interest and in pursuance of that scheme the petitioner and Ors., who had teen confirmed as Judicial Officers, were asked to appear before the Public Service Commission, Allahabad. After the interview the Governor transferred the petitioner t...
Kedar Nath Vs. Jamuna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All116
Oak, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment In 1940, Kedar Nath appellant filed a suit against the present respondents for their ejectment under Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act (hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). That suit was decreed; and the appellant obtained possession. Subsequently the respondents were reinstated under Section 27 of U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act (No. X of 1947--hereafter referred to as the 1947 Act). Soon after the respondents' reinstatement, the appellant, filed the present suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen. This civil suit for the defendants' ejectment was decreed by the First Additional Munsif of Gorakhpur. The defendants appealed. The appeal was allowed by the learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur; and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The learned Civil Judge held that a person who was reinstated under Section 27 of the 1947 Act is not liable to be ejected again. Kedar Nath plaintiff has, therefore, come up in second appe...
Ram Niwas Sant Lal and ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC523(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. In this petition the petitioner who is a dealer in cotton yarn seeks certiorari against an order passed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act assessing it to sales tax on the turnover of sales of cotton yarn in the assessment year 1962-63. The connected petitions are also petitions for certiorari against orders passed under the Sales Tax Act assessing the petitioners, who are all dealers in cotton yarn, on the turnover: of their sales of cotton yarn in the assessment year 1958-59 or subsequent assessment years. In some of the connected petitions the petitioners also seek certiorari against orders passed by the Sales Tax Officers rejecting the petitioners' applications for rectification of the assessment orders under Section 22 of the Act, which applications were made within three years of the assessment orders, but more than one year after they were passed. All the rectification applications were dismissed by the Sales Tax Officers on the ground that there was no apparent err...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›