Allahabad Court February 1965 Judgments
Gupta Brothers Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR640(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This and the connected references arise out of statements of the case submitted to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The questions that have been formulated by the Tribunal in this reference are :'1. Whether on the facts of the case, the loss of Rs. 21,881 in Tata deferred shares is an admissible deduction in the determination of the net income, profits and gains from business under section 10 of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, dealings in shares, cotton waste and money-lending constitute the same business within the meaning of section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act ?'The question formulated by the Tribunal in each of the connected references is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, dealings in cloth, shares, brokerage and money-lending constituted the same business within the meaning of section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act ?'This question is practically the same as que...
Tag this Judgment!Karamat Khan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR642(All)
The judgment of the court was delivered byMANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred i :'Whether there was any material for the finding that the sum of Rs. 10,000 added to the profits in respect of the sale of three lorries in the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1949-50 represented the difference between the original and the written down values of the three lorrie ?'The material facts are thes : The relevant year of assessment is the assessment year 1949-50, the previous year being the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1949. The assessee, inter alia, derives income from plying of lorries. In the previous year the assessee plied eight lorries. Out of these he sold three lorries at a price of Rs. 36,100. The Income-tax Officer computed the profits on the sale of the aforesaid three lorries under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) at Rs. 19,728. In his assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Bhargava and anr. Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1965
Reported in: [1965]56ITR393(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is a petition by two contributories of a company in liquidation. It purports to be under Section 216 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It prays that the official liquidator be directed not to deduct any income-tax from the third dividend which he proposes to distribute among the shareholders of the company. It also prays that the liquidator be directed to pay back to the shareholders the deduction of 30 per cent. made out of the second dividend.2. The petitioners hold ten thousand fully paid up shares of rupees ten each in the Lower Ganges Jamuna Electricity Distributing Co. (hereinafter called the company in liquidation). The company was compulsorily wound up by an order of this court passed in September, 1934. From the particulars given by the official liquidators it appears that at the commencement of the winding up of this company in September, 1934, the assets amounted to Rs. 11,72,762 10 as. 5 ps., whereas the liabilities were to the tune of Rs. 12,58,6...
Tag this Judgment!Bankey Singh Vs. Ram Sabad Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All367
S.N. Singh, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the plots in suit, in the alternative prayer for delivery of possession was also made. 2. The plaintiff's case in brief was that prior to the abolition of zamindari the second defendant Mst. Phulesara was the occupancy tenant of the plots in suit. She deposited ten times of the rent and became Bhumidhar of the plots in suit. She executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on March 10, 1954 and put the plaintiff in possession over the plots in suit. The plaintiff alleged that on the basis of wrong entries made in favour of defendant No. 1 he was interfering with the peaceful pos-session of the plaintiff, hence the suit.3. The defendants Bankey Singh and Mst. Phulesara contested the suit, inter aha on the grounds that Mst. Phulesara did not execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff; that the sale deed wa...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kulmani Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1106
Gyanendra Kumar, J.1. In this case the opponent, who is a member of the Socialist Party, had addressed a personal letter dated 25.7.1964 in a closed envelope to Sri Mathuresh Narain, Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. However, it was written on the official letter-head of the Party. It made reference to three cases - two of which had already been decided by the Magistrate, while the third one was still pending. The letter stated that in the complaint case of Alladia v. Mahkar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Seohara, the opponent had appeared as a witness for the complainant under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opponent alleged that the Magistrate did not like his appearing as a witness against the Police Sub-Inspector. He further alleged that in spite of the fact that there was prima facie evidence in the case, the Magistrate did not summon the Sub-Inspector as an accused, with the result that notwithstanding that his complaint was true, the said Alladia had to get ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad HussaIn Vs. Tasadduq HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All136
D.P. Uniyal, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising put of a suit for partition of 2 Sehams out of 6 Sehams of property described us C and D. 2. The facts of the suit giving rise to this appeal will be clear from the following pedigree:-- MURAD BUX _____________________|_____________________ | | Bahi Bux Kallu ____________|__________ _____________|______________ | | | | Ali Bux Mt. Hameedan Karim Bux=Mst. Karim Ullah Hameedan | YasinIn 1941 there was a partition between Ilahi Bux and Kallu sons of Murad Bux. Properties A and B were allotted to the share of Kallu and C and D were allotted to the share of Ilahi Bux, Prior to this on 6-11-1938 Ali Bux, son of Ilahi Bux had executed a usufructuary mortgage of property C-1 which is said fro be a Khaprail in favour of Ahmad Hussain defendant No. 6. In pursuance of the said mortgage Ahmad Hussain entered into possession. Thereafter on 23-2-1943 Smt. Hameedan, sister of Ali Bux, who was admittedly a co-owner of property C. 1, executed a s...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All422
C.B. Capoor, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal.2. The plaintiff, the Delhi Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., offered to supply ballot boxes to the defendant, the State of U. P. at the rate of Rs. 5-1-0 each F. O. R. any station in the State of U. P. The aforesaid offer was accepted by the defendant subject to a deduction of one anna per ballot box on account of inspection charges. The plaintiff company supplied ballot boxes and submitted bills for Rs. 1,33,523-4-6, which amount included a sum of Rs. 2,053-8-6 on account of sale tax and a sum of Rs. 47-4-0 on account of octroi duty. The defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,29,745 only and the plaintiff filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 2,300.3. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that it was not liable to pay sales tax and octroi duty. The learned Munsif who tried the case held that the defendant was not liable to pay octroi duty. He, however, accepted the plaintiff's contention that the defendant was liable to pay sales tax and decreed t...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Bhagwan DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All1
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this Full Bench for its opinion:'Whether, in the absence of an appellant or his counsel, an appellate Court should dismiss the appeal in default or decide the appeal on merits Whether under such circumstances the appellate Court has jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal on merits ?'2. On au application made under Section 13 of the Arbitration Act the Munsif of Orai passed a decree in terms of an award made by an arbitrator. The defendant preferred an appeal against the decree to the Civil Judge of Orai. When, the appeal came up for hearing neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared and the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal by passing an order in the following terms:'The appellant is absent. His counsel does not turn up to argue the appeal. The judgment appealed against is manifestly correct. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintiff-responde...
Tag this Judgment!Antarim Zila Parishad Vs. Bharat Cold Storage (Private Ltd.)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All182
C.B. Capoor, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the Antarim Zila Parishad, district Farrukhabad.2. Bharat Cold Storage Private Ltd., the respondent, to the appeal, was assessed by the appellant for the assessment year 1.956-57 to a tax of Rs. 2,000 on the circumstances and property of the respondent aN appeal was preferred against the order of assessment to the District Magistrate of Farrukhabad which was not pressed and was dismissed on the 3rd of May, 1956. The contention raised by the respondent company before the assessing authority and the appellate authority was that during the period under consideration it suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 17,339 and, as such, it was not liable to be assessed to circumstances and property tax. That contention did not find favour with the assessing authority and has been reiterated in the suit filed by the respondent company against the appellant for an injunction restraining it from realising the amount of tax assessed.2-a. The suit ...
Tag this Judgment!indraj Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Savitri Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All234
S.N. Singh, J. 1. The plaintiff respondent claiming to be the Bhumidhar of the propertyin suit filed the present suit against the defendants under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and claimed Rs. 300/- as damages. The suit was contested by the defendants that the plaintiff was not the Bhumidhar, She was not entitled to sue. She had not impleaded Sri Vijai Kumar and Sri Virendra Kumar as parties to the case. The suit was further resisted on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and that the defendants were in possession with the consent of the plaintiff. 2. On the above pleas the trial Court framed several issues and remitted an issue about Bhumidhari right to the competent Civil Court. The Civil Court held that the plaintiff was the Bhumidhar of the land in suit and this finding was accepted by the Assistant Collector in this case. Having held that the plaintiff was the Bhumidhar the trial Court found that the defendants were trespassers and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »