Allahabad Court March 1965 Judgments
Johri Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All170; [1966]61ITR6(All)
Pathak, J.1. A partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Johri Lal Shyam Lal had its head office at Agra and a branch at Gwalior. It maintained two sets of accounts, one in respect of the business at Agra and the other relating to the business at Gwalior. During the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1950-51, with which we are concerned, the partnership firm comprised of two partners, one of them being the assessee Hindu undivided family through its Karta. The assessment of the partnership firm was pending when the assessment of the assessee was completed. Subsequently in the course of the assessment proceedings on the partnership firm the Income-tax Officer discovered that the assessee had remitted from Gwalior to Agra several sums during the period April 29, 1949, to October 19, 1949, totalling Rs. 62,500. Accordingly, he issued a notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-lax Act, 1922, and included that amount in the assessment of the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshi Lal Bansi Dhar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All405; [1966]59ITR321(All)
Pathak, J. 1. The assesses is a Hindu undivided family. The head office is situated at Tulsipur in Indian territory, and there is a branch office at Koilabas in the State of Nepal. The head office and the Nepal branch function as independent business units. The Nepal branch sells goods to parties within the taxable territories in India either by way of outright sale or on consignment basis. The sale proceeds of such transactions are collected on behalf of the Nepal branch by the head office, which remits them to that branch either in cash or in the shape of goods. There are no transactions of purchase and sale inter se between the head office and the Nepal branch. The assessee has been uniformly treated as a resident in the taxable territories within the meaning of Section 4-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and has been assessed upon profits accruing or arising to it in the Nepal branch, apparently under Section 4 (1) (b) (ii), subject to a deduction of Rs. 4,500 by virtue of the proviso...
Tag this Judgment!Tugun Ram Vs. Dominion of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All260
Takru, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad, dismissing his suit.2. The facts involved in this appeal lie within a narrow compass and for the most part are not in dispute. It appears that on the 4th of September 1948 Tugun Ram, proprietor of Tugun Rarn Shriniwas purchased 79 bags of betel nuts from a place known as Bhola in East Pakistan and booked the same with the River Steam Navigation Company Ltd., and the India General Navigation and Railway Company Ltd,, defendants 2 and 3, at Bhola for carriage to, and delivery to him, at Allahabad. When the consignment was delivered to the plaintiff at Allahabad, it was found that 37 bags of betel nuts, weighing 74 maunds were missing, and of the remaining bags one had been cut and restitched and on weighing was found to be short by 1 maund and 4 seers for which the necessary short certificate was issued to the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff received 75 mau...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC701(All)
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the order dated 13th November, 1964, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur, be quashed and the respondents be commanded not to enforce it.2. The petitioner is a limited company. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton yarn and cloth. For the year 1955-56 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 4,41,234 in advance by way of sales tax along with the return filed by it in view of Rule 41(2) of the rules framed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Ultimately on 21st May, 1958, the Sales Tax Officer passed an assessment order for this year assessing the petitioner to sales tax of Rs. 4,19,322-2-3. The petitioner was not satisfied with the assessment order. It went up in appeal. On 17th July, 1961, the appeal was allowed, the assessment order was set aside and the matter was sent back to the Assessment Officer for proceeding afresh. The petitioner was not satisfied with ...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC462(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J. 1. This is a statement of a case referred to this Court under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as it was enforced in 1955-56. The facts as they appear from the statement are as under:--2. The assessee, at whose instance this statement has been submitted, was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1949-50 on its turnover for the previous year ending on 31st October, 1948. In the assessment year 1948-49, which is not the assessment year in question, different rates of sales tax were applicable to different commodities on different dates. It is not in dispute that on 1st April, 1949, the first date of the assessment year in question, all the turnover of all those commodities was liable to sales tax at 0-0-6 per rupee which is higher than the rate applicable to them in an earlier part of the previous assessment year 1948-49. The assessee was assessed to the tax in the assessment year in question at the rate of 0-0-6 per rupee. It filed an appeal against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. Vs. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR388(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred are :'1. Was the sum of Rs. 1,08,884 an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1953-54, because this payment related to the previous year ending March 31, 1953, even when the Industrial Tribunal gave an award on January 17, 1955, and the amount was debited in the books of the assessment year 1955-5 2. Was the sum of Rs. 3,43,278 an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1954-55 because the payment related to the previous year ending March 31, 1954, even when the Industrial Tribunal gave an award on January 12, 1955, and the amount was debited in the books of the assessment year 1955-5 The material facts are these : The assessee is a public limited company. The relevant assessment years are 1953-54 and 1954-55, the previous years being the respective financial years ending 31st March, 1953, and 31st March, 1954. The company had some d...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR744(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - This statement of case has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, professedly under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act on July 15, 1960, at the instance of the assessee. The questions formulated by the Tribunal are these :'1. Was there any material for the finding -(a) that the managing agents had rendered no service to the assessee company;(b) that Lala Ram Ratan Gupta and Lala Ram Prasad Gupta were acting qua their position as directors and not as partners of the managing company;(c) that a device was adopted to provide funds in the hands of parties at the expense of the company for the purpose of settling their individual accounts and that the payment of the amount in question was made only as a part of this device;(d) that the disputes between the partners of the managing agency firm could not, in any way, have affected the carrying on of the normal business of the company; and(e) that the company gained nothing by terminating the man...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Shyamo Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All82; [1966]59ITR1(All)
Desai, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P.'Whether the entry made by the assesses in her books on 22-12-1953 transferring Rs. 1 lac from her account to the account of her grandson Om Nath amounted to a valid gift when the book balance on that date amounted to Rupees 15-10-0 only.'The facts as given in the statement of the case are as follows :--The assessee derives income from property and from her share in a partnership firm Kishore Gopal Om Nath which is not a banking firm. The firm maintains its own accounts and the assessee also maintains her personal accounts. Her account books contain a capital account showing her investments and other assets in the firm and elsewhere. On 22-12-1953 her account books showed a balance of Rupees 2,50,000 and odd in her favour; only Rupees 15-10-0 were in cash with her, the rest being investments in...
Tag this Judgment!State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ambardekar (H.S.)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ368All
W. Broome, J.1. These two connected special appeals have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a decision given by Seth, J., on 3 January 3964, when by a common judgment he allowed two writ petitions and quashed the State Government's order dated 16 February 1958 in so far as it fixed the seniority of the two petitioners, Avadesh Kumar and H.S. Ambardekar, in the Uttar Pradesh Police Service by placing them below the officers promoted or directly recruited to that service in the year 1955.2. One of the petitioners, H. S. Ambardekar (the respondent in Special Appeal No. 134 of 1964), was appointed in October 1947 as Adjutant; in the wing of the Uttar Pradesh Police Force then known as the Military Police, the designation of which was changed in December 1947 to Provincial Armed Constabulary; while the other petitioner, Avadesh Kumar (the respondent in Special Appeal No. 135 of 1964), was similarly appointed as Adjutant In the soms force in February 1948. When the Provincial A...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All373; 1967CriLJ978
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 399 and 402 I. P. C.and sentenced to four year' rigorous imprisonment each under each of the two sections. The appellant Bhooreju has also been convicted under Section 25(a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. According to the prosecution case, Sujan Singh (P W 1) brought information to the Sub-Inspector Hirday Narain Pandey (P. W. 4). at police-station Bar. in the district of Jhansi, that Bhooreju appellant had proposed to him to join in the commission of a dacoity at the house of Pannalal Binia of village Dhangol. A first information report was, accordingly taken down at 5 p m on 2nd of November. 1962 at police-station Bar in which it was mentioned that Bhooreju known to Sujan Singh from before, had made a proposal previously and also at 4 p. m. on that very day and it also contains the name of Panna Lal of Dhangol at whose house...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »