Allahabad Court May 1966 Judgments
Jagdish Prasad and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All526
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a consolidated case stated under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The material facts are these. The relevant years of assessment are 1368F.. 1359F., 1360F., 1361F., and 1362F. Sahu Jagdish Prasad was the Karta of his undivided Hindu family up to the 31st of May, 1951. The joint family owned considerable Zamindari property in the districts of Pilibhit, Barreillv and Bijnore. The family consisted of his wife and his three sons The family had been paying agricultural income tax since the coming into force of the Act in 1948. It paid tax for 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 corresponding to Fasli years 1356-56 and 1357 in the status of a Hindu undivided family. A notice under Section 15(3) of the Act was issued to Sahu Jagdish Prasad as Karta for the relevant years of assessment. Sahu Jagdish Prasad submitted returns of income only in respect of l/4th of the agricultural assets heretofore held by the...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Aluminium Corporation of India ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All391; [1967]37CompCas586(All)
B. Dayal, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits between the parties. Two of the appeals have been filed by the common defendant while the third is by one of the plaintiffs, Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. These appeals have been pending in this court since 1952, mainly because the parties insisted upon bringing lawyers from outside but were unable to decide upon a common date on which lawyers for both the sides were able to attend the court. After all, with great difficulty, the appeals were started on the 6th of December, 1965, and were partly heard on the 7th of December, 1965, also, on which date learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants had finished their arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent started his case and argued for some time but the cases had to be postponed. Since then, several dates were fixed, but the plaintiffs were unable to bring any counsel to complete the arguments on their behalf. The cases were ultimately fixed for...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chand JaIn Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ391
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellant Prakash Chand Jain took charge on 8.3.1961 as the Cane Development Inspector, a public servant, at Meerut. He was also the ex-officio joint Secretary of the Cane Development Council of Maliana in 1961, and, in this capacity, be had to deal with cases in which coltivators applied for subsidies for constructing tube well for irrigating their fields. It was the policy of the Government to encourage sugarcane cultivation by granting subsidies. Every applicant for a subsidy bad to deposit Rs. 300 as security at the time of making the application. Applications could be granted by the Maliana Council. The subsidy could go upto Rs. 2000 for amounts spent on constructing a well upto Rs. 12,000. The well to be subsidized had to be constructed within the period fixed by the Council. It has to be inspected and the work done had to be approved and vouchers of expenses incurred had to be checked before the Council could pass a resolution for the payment of the subsidy. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sobhagmal Lodha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR435(All)
V. BHARGAVA C.J. - The following four question have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion in compliance with the order of this account made under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether there is any material to justify the inference that the income from managing agency commission and allowance from Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara, was the income of the Hindu undivided family and not that of Seth Sobhagmal Lodh ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a previous year different from the Diwali year could be adopted in respect of the income from the managing agency commission and allowance subject to tax on (a) accrual basis and (b) receipt basis ?3. Whether the amount said to have been received in British India in the previous year could be treated as income accruing or arising without British India in the same year and whether under section 4(1)(b)(iii) such amounts could be treated as assessable income for the assessment yea ...
Tag this Judgment!Sobhnath Vs. Raj Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All121
Sahai, J.1. This special appeal by Sri Sobhnath is directed against the judgment of G.C. Mathur, J. dated 11-4-1966 allowing writ petition No. 2019 of 1965 filed by respondent No. 1 Sri Raj Kishore.2. Sri Sobhnath filed an election petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer Meja district Allahabad challenging the election of Sri Raj Kishore as the Pradhan of village Kaundhiara. The main ground on which the election petition was founded was that Raj Kishore being a dismissed employee of the Sadhna Sahkari Samiti Ltd. which (according to Sobhnath) was a local authority was not eligible for nomination and consequently for election. The Sub Divisional Officer by his judgment dated 28-5-1965 allowed the election petition on the finding that Raj Kishore being a dismissed employee of the Sadhna Sahkari Samiti Ltd. was not eligible for election as the Sadhna Sahkari Samiti was a local authority within the meaning of Section 5A of the U. P. Panchavat Raj Act. This led to the filing of the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Luxman Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR51(All)
V. BHARGAVA C.J. - The question referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the opening stocks have been, in law, rightly taken at cost resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,09,595 on account of the revaluation of the opening stock ?'The brief facts relevant to answering this question are that the assessment year in respect of which this reference has been made to this court is the year 1949-50 for which the relevant previous year ended on the 30th September, 1948, and began on the 1st of October, 1947. The dispute relates to the valuation of the opening stock or sugar. For the earlier assessment year 1948-49, for which the relevant previous year closed on the 30th September, 1947, the closing stock of sugar was valued by the assessee at market rate at a figure of Rs. 5,09,974. The same amount was shown as value of the opening stock in the relevant previous year now in question on the 1st October, 1947. For the purpose of co...
Tag this Judgment!Moti and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All437; 1967CriLJ1124
S.D. Khare, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against an order dated 24th January, 1964,passed by the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Budaun, convicting all the five appellants, namely, Moti, Shiami. Madan Lal, MoharSingh and Dambar under Ss. 148, 302/149,324/149 I. P. C. and sentencing each of themto imprisonment for life under Sec. 302/149I. P. C., two years' rigorous imprisonment underSection 324/149 and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I. P. C. all the sentencesto run concurrently.2. All the five appellants and also the members of the complainant's party are the descendants of one common ancestor namely, Jhandey. Het Ram, Hulli and Mewi were the sons of Jhandey. Moti, Shiami and Madan Lal are the descendants of Het Ram, while, Mohar Singh and Dambar (appellants) are the grandsons of Hulli. The person who lost his life was Harkeshi, a son of Mewi, while those injured in the incident were Khem Karan, Pitam and Kundan sons of Mewi. and Sm. Nanhi, wife of Khem Raran....
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sobhag Mal Lodha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR424(All)
V. BHARGAVA C. J - In compliance with an order made by this court under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, a statement of the case has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court referring the following four questions for our opinion :'(1) Whether there is any material to justify the inference that the income from managing agency commission and allowance from Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara, was the income of the Hindu undivided family and not that of Seth Sobhagmal Lodh ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a previous year different from the Diwali year could be adopted in respect of the income from the managing agency commission and allowance subject to tax on (a) accrual basis and (b) receipt basis ?(3) Whether the amount said to have been received in British India in the previous year could be treated as income accruing or arising without British India in the same year and whether under section 4(1)(b)(iii) such amounts could be...
Tag this Judgment!Rajindra Kishore Sahi Vs. Durga Sahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All476
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Deoria reversing that of the First Additional Munsif, Deoria and dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs 500 from the defendant--respondent as damages for slander. The plaintiff appellant Rajindra Kishore Sahi is a practicing lawyer of Deoria and that the defendant respondent Durga Sahi is his pattidar. The relations between them have been bad, and a number of proceedings, civil and criminal, have been fought between them. In 1959 the dispute led to proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and there were two cross-cases. In one of them the plaintiff-appellant and his brother were the accused, (State v. Ravindra Kishore Sahi and others) and in the other the defendant respondent Durga Sahi and his party were the accused. The case against the plaintiff-appellant was heard on 6-2-1959 and Durga Sahi gave evidence as a prosecution witness.The plaintiff appellant, who appeared as counsel for himse...
Tag this Judgment!The State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Duli Chand Kashi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All349; [1968]22STC191(All)
Dwivedi, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two writ petitions. The petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, and we propose to follow this pattern. The leading case is the special Appeal No. 113.2. Broad facts of the case have been set out elaborately in the judgment of the learned single Judge. We would not repeat them in detail but would restate only such facts as are material for deciding the arguments before us.3. The learned Judge allowed the petitions and quashed the notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer (Ex. U. P. Dealers), Allahabad. Two notices were issued to the respondents under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. One was issued on December 26, 1956, and the other on March 2, 1957. They were issued by Sri Musharraf Husain, Sales Tax Officer (for Ex. U. P. Dealers) Allahabad. They called upon the respondents to produce their account-books including purchase invoices, cash memos, bills, receipt books, sales tax registers and other papers before him for enabling him...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »