Allahabad Court May 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sharma and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All277; [1965]57ITR470(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. I agree that the question should be answered in the affirmative but solely on the ground that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that 'this amount was received by the assessee firm as an allowance for the purposes of reimbursement of advertisement and other expenses.' The question referred to us is not whether this finding is supported by evidence or not and consequesntly we have to take it as binding upon us. Whether there is a special allowance specifically granted to meet expenses wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of an office is a question of fact and in regard to a finding on it the only question of law that can possibly arise is whether there was any material which could justify it. The question referred to us is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amount was exempt under Section 4(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. The facts and circumstances of the case in-clude the findings of fact because they are...
Hafiz Mohammad Zafar Ahmad Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All333
ORDERD.D. Seth, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and is directed against a notice dated 27th July 1962 sent to the petitioner by the Secretary of the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf under Section 55 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act). This petition is connected with Civil Revision No. 99 of 1962 filed by the petitioner. The petition and the application in revision were argued separately by the learned counsel tor the parties and I am, therefore, passing separate orders in respect or them. 2. The facts of the petition, in brief, as contained in the petition, are that plot No. 147, house No. 143 and plot No. 148 situated in monalla Khuldabad, Allahabad originally belonged to Sri Rahim Bux, grand-father of the petitioner. Rahim Bux died in 1913 and left a son Hafiz Mohd. Saleem who became the owner of the properties in dispute. On plot No. 149 there is a mosque built by Sri Rahim Bux who had nominated the petitioner as mutwaill ...
M. M. Sugar Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Gonda, and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR322(All)
R. S. PATHAK J. - This is a petition by the Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Private Ltd. of Munderwa, district Basti, praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an order made under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and for an order prohibiting the realisation of the consequent demand of tax.The Madho Kanhaiya Mahesh Gauri Sugar Mills Ltd. carried on business in the manufacture and sale of sugar. There was a struggle for power between rival groups of shareholders, one group headed by Lal Girjesh Bahadur Pal and the other by Harihar Prasad Naik, who fought for control over the affairs of the company. This found expression in several suits and criminal litigations. A petition under section 153C of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, was also filed by the Girjesh Bahadur group in this court which culminated in an order on January 28, 1954, recording an agreement between the parties that the Naik group would purchase all the shares of its rival group, that twenty-five prcent...
Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR392(All)
R. S. PATHAK J. - The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in piece-goods and commission agents. If had its head office at Kanpur and a branch at Farrukhabad. It consisted of two partners, Gurbux Rai and Harbux Rai, with equal shares, and each of the partners represented his own Hindu undivided family. The Hindu undivided family of which Gurbux Rai was a member was subsequently partitioned. The assessees branch business at Farrukhabad was transferred to a partnership, Messrs. Pussalal Jagganlal, consisting of Harbux Rai and the divided members of Gurbux Rais erstwhile Hindu undivided family, the shares of the partners being Harbux Rai 8 annas, Chameli Devi 4 annas and Gopaldas 4 annas. This business was taken over by the partnership on July 4, 1943.The original assessment under section 14 of the Excess Profits Tax Act was made upon the assessee on January 29, 1947, for the chargeable accounting periods ending June 21, 1944, and July 10, 1945. The assessee represented that...
Sheo Ratan Upadhya Vs. Gopal Chandra Nepali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All274; 1965CriLJ672
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellant Sheo Ratan Upadhya filed a complaint against the respondents, Gopal Chandra Nepali, Manager Sarvahitalshi Company, a publishing house of Varanasi, and Mahadeo Prasad, the proprietor of Deepak Press of Varanasi, for an alleged infringement of the copyright of a work called 'Shri Mahabharat' in Nepali language which was written by the complainant's father, Pandit Narendra Nath Upadhya. The book was first published in 1929 through the Sarvahitalshi Company during tne life time of its author who died on 19th June 1950, The complainant, the eldest son of his father, does not seem to possess personal knowledge about the publication or sale of the book and states in his complaint that he was busy with his studies until recently when he took up the management of the affairs of the family. The complainant alleges that his father had told him that he had never sold the copyright of the abovementloned work, which is mere hearsay and an admission in his own favour.2. T...
Manna Lal Vs. Mst. Chhotka Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1964All552
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. I agree fully with Bishambar Dayal, J. and may add few words. There is a distinction between an appeal that is barred by time and an appeal that does not lie at all or is filed through an insufficiently stamped memorandum of appeal which a High Court is forbidden by Section 4 of the Court Fees Act to receive. The ban imposed by Section 4 on the receipt by a High Court of a document insufficiently stamped is not only unambiguous but also emphatic and absolute, bearing no exception at all. Section 6(2) of the Court Fees Act allows a Court to receive a plaint or a memorandum of appeal even though it is insufficiently stamped but it is not to be acted upon unless the plaintiff or the appellant makes good the deficiency in court fee within the time allowed and when it is made good within the time allowed S 5 provides that the date of the institution of the suit or the appeal shall be deemed to be the date on which the suit or the appeal was filed. This provision applies o...
Sharma and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All376; [1965]57ITR372(All)
Pathak, J.1. The assesses, M/s Sharma and Company, was a registered partnership firm consisting of two members, Sheo Nath Sharma and Chandran Devi. This partnership was dissolved on December 31, 1947, when the entire business was transferred to Pt. Deo Snarma, who thereafter carried it on as sole proprietor of the business. Subsequently, he entered, into a partnership with his brother Sheo Nath Sharma, it being agreed that the partnership would be deemed to have come into existence on January 1, 1948, and that Sheo Nath Sharma would be entitled to a share of 6 annas in the rupee in the profits of the business.2. The assessee filed a return of its income for the period. May 3, 1946, to June 20, 1947, relating to the assessment year 1948-49, and was assessed by the income Tax Officer on March 30, 1953. It was also assessed for the period June 21, 1947, to December 31, 1947, of which the relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1949-50, the assessment order being made on January 30...
Sharma and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All519; [1965]56ITR176(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee, which is a partnership firm, was appointed by the British India Corporation as the sole selling agent of one of its managed concerns, the Cawn-pore Cotton Mills, under an agreement D/- January 22, 1946. The agreement, which was originally intended to endure for one year, was subsequently extended from time to time. It appears that the assessee was informed that its continuation as sole selling agent was not considered feasible as it was no longer in a position to run the selling agency in accordance with the wishes of the British India Corporation. The assessee also owed the Corporation a sum of Rs. 8,39350-15-6, which, it seems, it was unable to pay. On March 23, 1955, the assessee entered into a written agreement with one Kailash Nath Agarwal, the preamble to which recited the circumstances in which the assessee was unable to continue as sole selling agent and also the circumstance th...
Tribeni Ram Vs. Satyadeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All20
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of the Election Tribunal, Azamgarh dismissing an election petition filed by Tribeni Rai appellant.2. The petition arose out of an election held in 1962 for membership to the U. P. Vidhan Sabha Deogaon Assembly Constituency No. 227 of district Azamgarh. The election was contested by the appellant and the five respondents. Polling took place on 19th February, 1962 and counting of votes was done continuously from 10 A.M. of 26th February to about 5 A.M. of 27th February, 1962. According to the counting. Sri Satyadeo Singh, respondent No. 1, secured 12505 votes, Sri Tribeni Rai, appellant, 12497 votes, Rama Shanker Singh, respondent No. 2, 11058 votes, Tej Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 3, 6350 votes, Ram Jag Yadava, respondent No. 4, 3659 votes and Amardeo Ram, respondent No. 5, 3588 voles. As a result. Satyadeo Singh, respondent: No. 1 ...
Hukam Singh Vs. Banwari Lal Bipra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All552
Asthana, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act from the judgment of Sri H.K. Sinha. District Judge of Agra appointed as' Tribunal under that Act to try an election petition filed by Hukam Singh, appellant questioning the election of Banwari Lal Bipra, respondent No. 1, who was elected to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly from 364 Fatehabad Constituency in Agra district in the general elections held in February 1962. The appellant was one of the contesting candidates and so were the other respondents impleaded in this appeal. The poll was taken on the 19th February 1932. As a result of the counting of votes Banwari Lal Bipra respondent No. 1 obtained 10,986 votes and Hukam Singh appellant obtained 10,939 votes. Thus there was a difference of 47 votes only between the appellant and respondent No. 1, the other contesting candidates obtaining far lesser number of votes. Accordingly Banwari Lal Bipra respondent No. 1, was declared elected. Appellant Huka...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »