Allahabad Court March 1965 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.
Ram Chand and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1965
Reported in: [1967]63ITR252(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The question referred for the opinion of this court is :'Whether the assessment made on the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1953-54 in respect of the pre-dissolution profits after its dissolutions valid in law ?'The material facts lending up to this reference are thes : The relevant assessment years is 1953-54, the previous year being the year 1st October, 1951, to 30th September, 1952. The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of four partners, Roshan Lal, Ram Swarup, Jugal Kishore and Purshottam Das, each having a four annas share. The assessee was manufacturing sugar in its factory at Barabanki. For the relevant year of assessment the firm submitted on the 30th December, 1953, a return of Rs. 2,176 as its income from business. In response to a notice under section...
New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR395(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922.The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case stated above, the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 provided for in the balance-sheet and debited to the profit and loss account as bonus, could be allowed as a deduction in the assessment year under consideration ?'The material facts are that for the assessment year 1949-50, the previous year being 31st December, 1948, the assessee-company claimed as a deduction a provision made for bonus amounting to Rs. 4,50,000 provided for in the profit and loss in the relevant previous year, but actually paid in the following year. For the accounting year ending October 31, 1942, although a provision was made in its accounts for bonus in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000, only Rs. 63,385, the actual payment made, was allowed to be deducted in that year and the balance was disallowed. For the years ending October 31, 1943, up to the year ending Dec...
Behari Lal Baldeo Prasad, Commission Agents Vs. Commissioner, Jhansi D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All176; [1967]63ITR555(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the Income Tax recovery certificate and the proceedings consequent thereto be all quashed.2. The petitioner Messrs Behari Lal Baldeo Prasad was a Hindu undivided family carrying on business. It was assessed to income-tax for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 and a tax demand of Rs. 14,495/- was due from this firm. For the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52 an amount of Rs. 19,200/- was due from this firm by way of penalty. Thus a demand of Rs. 33,695/- had to be paid by thisfirm to the Income-tax Department, In 1956 differences between the members of the family led to a stoppage of business. A Partition Suit (No. 13 of 1956) was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Orai. The trial court appointed a Receiver over the family properties.3. On 20-7-1959 the Income-tax Officer issued a recovery certificate under Section 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act, .1922 for Rs. 33,695/-. By an orde...
Ram Abhilakh Vs. Ram Jas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All218
ORDER1. This order shall govern Civil Revisions Nos. 875 and 876 of 1962 both by Ram Abhilakh, decree-holder, against the order, dated 30-8-1962 of the Munsif of Gyanpur, holding that in view of Section 42, C. P. C. he had, while executing the decree passed by the Nyaya Panchayat, same powers as the Nyaya Panchayat, and could not execute the decree by attachment and sale of immovable property. He consequently dismissed the application of Ram Abhilakh for the execution of the decree by attachment and sale of immovable property. 2. Section 64 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act enumerates) the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat in civil cases. A perusal thereof shall make it clear that the Nyaya Panchayat has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit for the recovery of immovable property or for the value thereof. Similarly the Nyaya Panchayat has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the recovery of money due on a contract in respect of an i...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Vs. Smt. Janak ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All266
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution by the New India Assurance Company, Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad dated 23rd January, 1963 and the 16th August, 1963, whereby the Insurance Company was not permitted to take up pleas other than those specifically provided for under Section 96 Sub-clause (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rejection of the subsequent application wherein the Insurance Company had asked for permission to defend the suit in the name of the assured who was not coming forward to contest the suit.2. The facts lie within a narrow compass and they are these: A motor truck No. U. P. C. 5818 belonging to the assured, Sri Ram Swarup Shukla respondent No. 6, which was being driven by Shamlal the driver, respondent No. 7, was insured with the Insurance Company against third party risk as required under...
Loon Karan Sohan Lal Vs. Firm John and Co. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All308
Dhavan, J.1. I agree with the conclusions of my learned brother that the plaintiff-appellant has not established any liability on the part of the fifth defendant Sethiya and Co. I would like to add a few reasons of my own by way of supplementing those of my learned brother. Mr. Misra argued the appellant's claim against this defendant in the alternative. First he contended that Sethiya and Co. were liable in damages to the appellant for non-delivery of 152 bales of yarn to the defendant and for the refund of the price. But this liability could only arise under a contract, and the evidence does not disclose any contract between the appellant and Sethiya and Co. The contract of sale was with John and Co., not with Sethiya. The appellant cannot hold the latter liable unless he can establish privity of contract with that firm. The principle of law is so simple as to be elementary. If a person makes an agreement of purchase of goods with another paying the price in advance, and the seller d...
Mst. Asma and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1967All158; 1967CriLJ311
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 363 and 366 I. P. C. by a Civil and Sessions Judge of Kanpur and sentenced to 3 years' R. I. and 4 years' R. I. It is alleged that a girl named Shubratan, under 18 years in age, had been kidnapped by the appellants from the lawful guardianship of her lather Maqdoom. The father died before the trial but his statement before the Committing Magistrate was admitted at the trial under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. The girl had given out her age. In the witness box, as 20 years on 6-8-1963, but her statement has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions' Judge in view of the opinions of Dr. G. C. Agarwal and lady Dr. C. Mitra, given after examination of X-ray plates of the joints of the girl's limbs, and the unchallenged statement of the father in the committing Magistrate's court. At the time of the alleged occurrence, round about 18th of June, 1962, the girl must have been between 14 and 15 years. The girl w...
Keshav Singh Vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1965All349; 1965CriLJ170
G.C. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus setting the petitioner at liberty. 2. The petitioner had been detained in the District Jail, Lucknow, under a warrant issued over the signature of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh, showing that the petitioner had been convicted for contempt of the Legislative Assembly and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment. This petition was filed on March 19, 1364, before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The petition was admitted on the same day and an interim order was made directing the petitioner to be released on ball on furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each and a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Lucknow. It may be mentioned that on March 19, 1864, the petitioner had served six days out of the sentence of seven days and only one day's imprisonment remained to be suffered b...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966All129
Oak, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit to recover arrears of salary. Debi Prasad respondent was employed as a driver in the Government Roadways, Bareilly Division, at Shahjahanpur. He was dismissed from service on 19-2-1952. In 1952 he filed a suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh for a declaration that the order of dismissal dated 19-2-1952 was illegal and void. He also prayed for arrears of pay. That suit was decreed in Debi Prasad's favour on 24-9-1055. It was declared that the order of dismissal dated 19-2-1952 was void. The Court also passed a decree for Rs. 1,378/- for arrears of salary. In the year 1957 Debi Prasad filed against the Stale of Uttar Pradesh another suit to recover arrears of salary for the subsequent period. That is Original Suit No. 385 of 1957, out of which the present Second Appeal has arisen. In this suit filed on 22-2-1957 the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 3,944/- on account of arrears of salary from 11-12-1953 to 10-2-1957. The claim was resist...
Makhanlal Ram Swarup Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR214(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The question referred is :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an equitable apportionment of the expenses could be virtue of the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act ?'The material facts are these. The assessee is an individual. During the relevant year of assessment, which is the assessment year 1956-57, the previous year being the year ended Bhadon Sudi 2, Sambat 2012, carried on business in speculation and money-lending at Agra in the name of Makhan Lal Ram Swarup, hereinafter referred to as head office. He also carried on another business under the name and style of Messrs. S. D. Gupta & Co., hereinafter referred to as the branch, in which the business was confined to speculation business alone. The assessee kept only one account for expenses incurred in the head office and branch business carried on in the afore...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »