Allahabad Court November 1966 Judgments
Nihal Chand Kishori Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1966
Reported in: [1969]71ITR257(All)
S. C. MANCHANDA J. - This is a consolidated case stated under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. The question referred is :'Whether having regard to the nature of the various activities and the other facts and circumstance of the case the business carried on by the assessee at the time which the claim under section 25(4) was made was the same business on which tax under the act of 1918 was paid and whether relief under section 25(4) was or not allowable ?'There was a Hindu undivided family styled Nihal Chand Kishori Lal. It was dealing in various kinds of grains and oil seeds. That business of the Hindu undivided family was charged to tax under the provision of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918. Later on, the Hindu undivided family business was taken over by a registered firm consisting of the members of the Hindu undivided family as its partners. It is this firm which is the assessee in the present case. The newly constituted f...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR547(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question referred is :'Whether in the circumstances and facts stated above the entire share income of the assessee from the Bareilly firm, M/s. Sindh Gopal Amar Nath, or only 1/3rd of it was includible in the assessment of the assessee ?'The material fact are these. The relevant assessment year is 1957-58, the previous year being Diwali Samvat 2013. The assessee was assessed to tax in the status of an individual. The assessee, Mahesh Prasad, and two others, Gopi Nath and Kashinath, were partners with equal shares in the registered firm of Messrs. Vishwanath Prasad Mahesh Prasad at Farrukhabad, hereinafter referred to as the Farrukhabad firm. On 29th January, 1956, the assessee, Mahesh Prasad, joined another firm Messrs. Sidh Gopal Amar Nath, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the Bareilly firm), as an employee on a salary of Rs. 200 per mensem. Subsequently, under an instrument of partnership d...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.N. SarIn Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All465
ORDERS.N. Dwivedi, J.1. The Municipal Board of Farrukhabad--Fatehgarh consists of 25 members. The petitioner. Dr. B.N. Sarin, was its President and accordingly, an ex officio member of it. On September 9, 1966, a resolution of no-confidence was passed against him. He says that the resolution is illegal and ineffective inasmuch as the meeting of the Municipal Board m which it was passed was convened illegally.2. His contention is founded on the circumstance that no notice of the meeting was ever sent to him. The meeting convened without notice even to a single member is illegal. He has sought to support his contention by authorities: W. Smyth v. H.F. Darley, (1849) 9 ER 1293, Dobson v. Fussy, (1831) 131 E.R. 117 Young v. Ladies Imperial Club, 1920-2 KB 523, Radha Kishan Jaikishan v. Municipal Committee Khandwa, , Hari Dutt Bahuguna v. State of U. P., Civil Misc Writ No. 2427 of 1959 D/-19-11-1959 by Tandon J (All.) and K. N. Misra v Chancellor. University of Allahabad, Civil Misc. Writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Balmiki Singh Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All259
Mahesh Chandra, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the decree of both the Courts below.2. Mathura Prasad, Shyam Lal and Dan Bahadur respondents instituted a suit against Balmiki Singh appellant for possession over plots Nos. 428/22, 444/12 and 429/ 25 of village Kundru of district Gonda and recovery of Rs. 60 as damages, alleging that Ram Govind, the father of respondent No. 1 and grand father of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, was a Sub-tenant of the disputed plots and became an adhivasi on the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. They alleged that Ram Govind died subsequently and as his heirs the respondents became the adhivasis of the disputed plots and became sirdars thereafter on 30-10-1954. The appellant is said to have wrongfully cut away the crops of these plots causing a loss of Rs. 65 to the respondents.3. The appellant contended that he himself was the adhivasi and had become sirdar of the disputed plots with effect from 30-10-195...
Tag this Judgment!inter-asian Footwear Corporation Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR110(All)
The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on business principally in footwear. It field its return of income for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment order on March 31, 1965, under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner preferred and appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner issued a notice dated November 15, 1965, requiring the petitioner to furnish details of purchased and sales of imported commodities during the year of account. Certain other particulars were also required of the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the notice on November 25, 1965. Then followed a notice dated April 23, 1966, from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the petitioner informing the latter that it was proposed to enhance its assessment. This notice purports to have been issued under section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act...
Tag this Judgment!Maharao Raja Kamlaker Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR351(All)
The judgment of the court was delivery byMANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question of law referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the quarries of Rs. 20,360 was includible in the assessment of the assessee under the provisions of section 16 (3) (iii) of the Act ?'The material facts are these : The relevant assessment year is 1948-49, the previous year being the financial year 1947-48. By a registered lease deed dated 16th April, 1947, the assessee made a lease of certain quarries in favour of his wife in perpetuity. Paragraph 3 of the deed reads :'That the lessee is highly educated and accomplished daughter of Ruling Chief of Alas State in Kathiawar, famous for its industry and business instinct.In consideration of the royalty and lessees convenient hereafter reserved and contained the lessor hereby transfers to the lessee the quarries ...
Tag this Judgment!Saudan Singh Vs. Goswami Rasikanand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All168
B.D. Gupta, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a decree for specific performance by which the appellant has been directed to execute a sale deed of certain agricultural plots in favour of the plaintiff.2. The facts which are no longer in dispute in this second appeal are that on the 27th of November, 1954, the defendant executed document Ex. 1 which purports to be a sale deed of the plots in suit in plaintiff's favour for a sum of Rs 100/-. This document was never presented for registration and, on the 27th of November, 1957, the plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal relying upon the aforesaid document as an agreement by the defendant to sell the plots in suit to the plaintiff. Plaintiff's allegation was that in spite of repeated requests from the plaintiff, the defendant did not bring about a conveyance of the property covered by the aforesaid document, even though the plaintiff had been in actual possession of the plots in suit.3. The suit was ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Dut Chunni Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. [1967] 64 I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR33(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 6(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :'Whether it is legal to levy a composite penalty for more than one offence under section 28 of the Act ?'The material facts are these : the assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The relevant assessment year is 1959-60. The assessee did not comply with the notices under sections 22(2) and 22(4) of the Act and the assessment was completed under section 23(4) of the Act on an income of rs. 45,560 resulting in an assessment and demand of Rs. 13,778. For the default under sections 22(2) and 22(4) of the Ac t, the assessee became liable for penalty under section 28(1)(a) up to the maximum limit of Rs. 20,667, being one and a half times of the amount of tax assessed (i.e., one and a half times of Rs. 13,778).Apart from the above defaults, the assessee was required by a notice under section 18A(1) of the Act, dated 30th May, 1958, to deposit...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi NaraIn Agarwala Vs. State Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All573
Lakshmi Prasad, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been referred to a Division Bench by our brother Nigam by his order dated 4th November. 1965 on the ground that it involves the decision of an important question of law on which there has been some difference of opinion between Nigam J. on the one hand and Jagdish Sahai J. on the other and as such, it is desirable to have an authoritative pronouncement by this Court. 2. By their resolution dated 18th November, 1962 the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, opposite party No. 2, took a decision to increase the strength of Lucknow-Hardoi route via Malihabad and Rahimabad by twenty. This decision was taken without affording any opportunity to the operators already operating on that route to make any representation against the proposed increase in the strength on that route. Accordingly, some of the operators preferred revisions before the State Transport Authority, opposite party No. 1 in December, 1962 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Sita Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR349(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments made on the firm for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55, after its dissolution without issuing separate notices to all the partners of the defunct firm is bad in law ?'The material facts are these : The relevant assessment years are 1953-54 and 1954-55. Notices under section 22 (2) of the Act were issued to Messrs. Nand Kishore Sita Ram on 16th July, 1953, and 10th June, 1954, for the relevant assessment years respectively and were served on 25th July, 1953 and 17th July, 1954, on one of the partners. The return of income dated 8th April, 1956, was filed on 9th April, 1956, and was signed by Nand Kishore Gupta, who was a partner in respect of the assessment year 1953-54. No return of income was filed for the assessment year 1954-55, and the assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »