Allahabad Court April 1966 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.
Plastic Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR209(All)
BHARGAVA, C.J. - The question referred for our opinion is :'Whether, in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 29,997 incurred by the appellant-company for the protection of its cash resources was an expenditure allowable under section 10(2)(xv) ?'The statement of the case and the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal show that the assessee was negotiating with Messrs. Potts Engineers Ltd., Leeds, in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the United Kingdom Company), for supply of moulds required in the manufacturing of plastic goods by the assessee. The United Kingdom Company brought a suit for damages against the assessee claiming that the assessee had committed breach of contract in respect of the purchase of the moulds. The suit was decreed by the Queens Bench Division for pounds 8,410 as damages along with pounds 2,000 as costs. After the decision of the suit, which took place on the 18th December, 1953, there was a...
Laxmi Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR770(All)
V. BHARGAVA, C.J. - The question referred for our opinion is :'Whether, on a true construction of the Income-tax Rules, the application for registration of the firm preferred on November 17, 1953, is defective ?'The statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal shows that the assessee commenced business on December 1, 1952, as a partnership and an instrument of partnership was executed. The application for registration of the firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act was presented on November 17, 1953, in respective of the assessment year 1954-55 for which the previous year was the 1st December, 1952, to 30th November, 1953.The Income-tax Officer rejected the application for registration on the ground that the firm was not genuine.On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held the firm to be genuine, but rejected the application on the ground that it was presented after the expiry of the period of limitation, and on the additional ground that minors were made responsible for...
J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR97(All)
V. BHARGAVA C.J. - The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty under section 46(1) of the Income-tax Act as applied to the Excess Profit Tax Act was legally imposed ?'The question arises in connection with recovery of excess profits tax for three chargeable accounting periods ending on 30th April, 1944, 30th April, 1945, and 31st March, 1946. In respect of these chargeable accounting periods, excess profits tax was assessed on 28th February, 1949, 25th March, 1949, and 25th March 1949, bringing into existence demands of Rs. 3,60,324-11-0, Rs. 1,15,034 and Rs. 83,123-5-0. Demand notice were issued on the dates of the assessments. In response to these demand notices, the assessee moved applications on 17th March, 1949 and 31 March, 1949, for stay of recovery of the amounts assessed until the disposal of appeals which had been filed against the assessments. The appeals were actually disposed o...
Shanker Lal Vs. Vijay Shanker Shukla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All58
Rajeswari Prasad, J. 1. These are two connected second appeals which can be disposed of by a common judgment Courts below have also disposed of the two suits giving rise to the two second appeals by the common judgment.2. Suit No. 192 of 1962 was filed by Sri Shanker Lal, who is now the appellant before me against Sri Vijay Shanker, Sri Baboo Lal Sharma and Manager Shrimad Daya Nand Anathalaya, Agra. The other suit No. 277 of 1962 was filed by Sri Vijay Shanker Shukla aforesaid against Sri Shanker Lal, Baboo Lal and Manager, Shrimad Dayanand Anathalaya. Suits are in the nature of cross-suits. Consequently, the plaint allegations in the suit of Shri Shanker Lal are the allegations in his written statement in the other suit and vice versa. The only difference is that in the suit of Sri Shanker Lal, namely, Suit No. 192 of 1962, Sri Babu Lal Sharma and the Manager Shrimad Daya Nand Anathalaya, Agra have filed written statements to contest the claim of Shanker Lal while these two defendant...
Hanuman Pershad Gupta and anr. Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All135; 1967CriLJ305
ORDERD.P. Uniyal, J.1. These 8 connected revisions raise common questions of fact and law and may be disposed of by the same judgment. The above revisions arise out of complaints filed by one Hira Lal, opposite party, under Section 207 of the Indian Companies Act against the first applicant Sri Hanuman Prasad Gupta, Director in Charge, M/s. Iron Traders Private, Ltd., and the second applicant Sri Wisakha Singh, the Managing Director.2. The opposite party is admittedly a shareholder of the Company aforesaid. His casewas that he had not been paid dividend which had been declared by the Company during the years in question and, therefore, the applicants were liable to be punished. The complaints were filed in the court of a Magistrate, first class, at Meerut. After examining the complainant the Magistrate issued summons for the attendance of the accused under Section 204(1), Cr. P. C. The applicants made an application disputing the jurisdiction of the Meerut court to take cognisance of t...
Dwarika Prasad Bhatnagar Vs. Damodar Swarup, Official Receiver and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All520
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is an insolvent's, second appeal from an order of the Additional District Judge Meerut confirming in appeal the order of the insolvency court dismissing as time barred his objection that certain properties are not liable to be attached and sold. A petition was filed before the Insolvency Court at Meerut for adjudging the appellant Dwarka Prasad Bhatnagar as insolvent He resisted and filed an objection which was dismissed on 6th January 1659. The creditors filed an appeal before the District Judge During the pendency of this appeal the appellant filed an application conceding that he was unable to pay off his debts and praying that the appeal be allowed and he be adjudged as insolvent, and also praying for the appointment of an official receiver to take possession of all his properties and dealing with them according to law. This application was made by agreement with the creditors. As a result the court allowed the appeal and adjudged the appellant insolvent and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›