Allahabad Court September 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.
Bishal Chand JaIn Vs. Chattur Sen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All506; (1968)IILLJ708All
R. Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal against the judgment and decree of Sri Mohammad Tufall Ahmad. I Civil Judge, Saharanpur, dated 5th July 1954 in Original Suit No. 109 of 1950. This first appeal was connected with another First Appeal No. 298 of 1954, which was filed by one of the defendants from the same decree. That first appeal, however, is now no more before us inasmuch as the appellants of that appeal entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs on the basis of which, the appeal was dismissed. The only appeal which is now before us is First Appeal No. 397 of 1954.2. Pandit Gopi Nath Kunzru, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued the appeal before us on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant.3. Before we deal with the appeal, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant himself, to the effect, that this Court is not properly constituted and that the appeal cannot be heard. The two pronged argument...
J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All513
Beg, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by means of a consolidated order on three reference applications The first of these questions relates to the assessment year 1950-51, and the same question had arisen out of the assessee's case for the assessment year 1949-50. This question has already been answered by this Court on 29-4-1966 in TTR No 207 of 1962 (All), J.K. Cotton. Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax, Lucknow.2. The assessee is a private limited company, which had employed Sri H. P. Pasari in 1939 as the General Manager of its Mills. It had also employed Shri Madan Lal Singhania in 1936 as Printing Master in its Calico Department. There was no written contract of service between either of these two employees and the assessee. Both these employees were involved in a murder case and remained in jail as under-trial prisoners fr...
J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR444(All)
M. H. BEG J. - Two question have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by means of a consolidated order on three reference applications. The first to these questions relates to the assessment year 1950-51 and the same question had arisen out of the assessees case for the assessment year 1949-50. This question has already been answered by this court on April 29, 1966, in Income-tax Reference No. 207 of 1962 (J. K. Cotton, Shining & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax).The assessee is a private limited company, which had employed Sri H. P. Pasari in 1939 as the general manager of its mills. It had also employed Sri Madan Lal Singhania in 1936 as printing master in its calico department. There was no written contract of service between either of these two employees and the assessee. Both these employees were involved in a murder case and remained in jail us under-trial...
K. P. Bhargava Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR288(All)
MACHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether the surplus of Rs. 37,385 arising from the sale of plant and machinery of an ice factory is chargeable to income-tax under section 10(2) (vii) of the income-tax Act as deemed income of the assesse ?'The finding of fact given by the tribunal is that the business was not carried on during the previous year and this finding of fact has been accepted by the revenue. The question referred now stands concluded by a decision of the supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ajax Products Ltd., where it had been laid down that, notwithstanding the second proviso to section 10(2) (vii) as amended in 1949, the profit from the sale of the assets could not be taxed because the proviso did not warrant the assumption of the legal fiction that during the calendar year when the sale took place the company should be deemed to be carrying on business.The question is, accordingly, a...
Smt. Annapurna and anr. Vs. Munshi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All531
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. The main contention raised in this appeal on behalf of the defendants-appellants is that the benefit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act is not available in respect of a transfer made to contravention of Section 153 of the U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and the plaintiffs-respondents who are transferees under such atransfer got no rights in the land covered by the transfer even upon the subsequent acquisition by the transferors of the rights of a Bhumidhar in the said land, which was held by them only as Sirdars at the time of its transfer. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jumma Masjid Mercara v. K. Deviah AIR 1962 S. C 847 which was followed by me in Jagat Narain v. Laljee AIR 1965 All 504 this contention is plainly untenable It was urged by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that a transfer in contravention of Section 153 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been declared to be void ...
Hari Ram Mittal Vs. Zila Parishad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All463
ORDERG.C. Mathur, J.1. By a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated April 21, 1928, the District Board, Muzaffarnagar, imposed circumstances and property tax on persons ordinarily residing or carrying on business in the rural areas of the district of Muzaffarnagar. The notification also prescribed the rates at which this tax was to be levied. There is no dispute that the tax was in its inception, properly and legally imposed. On August 23. 1958, the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act, 1958, was published in the U.P. Gazette. This Act replaced the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Ordinance, 1958. Under the Ordinance and the Act, all district boards in U.P. and ail committees of such boards ceased to function from May 1. 1958, and all members and fee Presidents of such boards and all members of such committees were deemed to have vacated their respective offices.So long as the Antarim Zila Parishad was not constituted for a district, the Collector was to take over the administration of th...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All490; 1967CriLJ1260
ORDERD.P. Uniyal, J.1. This revision has been filed from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor affirming the conviction of the applicant under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules. 1962 for contravention of Clause 3B (b) of the U. P Foodgrains (Control, Requisition and Distribution) Order, 1963, but reducing the sentence of fine from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500.2. The order of the Magistrate regardingforfeiture of 100 quintals of wheat and gramwas set aside and the same was ordered to berestored to the applicant. 3. The facts of the case lie in a short compass and may be stated thus: Jagdish Prasad applicant is a licensed dealer in foodgrains. On 26-9-1964 S.D.M Bijnor checked the stork of the accused and found 110.357 quintals of foodgrains in his possession.4. Under Clause 3B(b) of the said Order 'no dealer shall have in his possession at any time a quantity of foodgrains exceeding 100 quintals .5. Rule 5 of the Defence of India Rules lays down that if any person, who is in p...
Allahabad Woollen Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR548(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 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 4,796 paid to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is an allowable deduction in the accounts for the assessment year 1961-62 ?'The material facts are these. The assessee is a limited company. The relevant assessment year is 1961-62, the previous year being the period, April 1, 1960, to March 31, 1961. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee claimed an allowance of Rs. 4,796, being the contribution made by it under the Employees Provident Funds Act (19 of 1952) in respect of the period, 18th April, 1956, to November, 1958. The amount was disallowed on the ground that it was not an expenditure incurred in the relevant year. The assessee went up in appeal and contended that it was only in the relevant accounting year that the assessee, as an employer, was c...
Sri Kashi Prasad Saksena Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All173; (1967)IILLJ588All
1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of B. N. Nigam, J. dated 7th of May, 1966 dismissing Writ Petition No. 380 of 1964 filed by appellant, Sri Kashi Prasad Saksena, who was a Notary practising in the City of Lucknow. In the writ petition aforesaid, the order of the State Government dated March 11, 1964 removing the name of the appellant-petitioner, Sri Kashi Prasad Saksena, from the register of Notaries is sought to be quashed.2. Sri Kashi Prasad Saksena was appointed as a Notary by means of the order of the State Government dated 17th of August, 1959, for a period of three years. On 10-8-1962 his term was renewed for a further period of three years with effect from 20-8-1962. However, the State Government received certain complaints against him and asked the District Judge, Lucknow, who is a competent authority under the rules framed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (o make an enquiry. The District Judge framed the following three ...
Sales Tax Commissioner Vs. Ram Kumar Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC400(All)
S.C. Manchanda, J.1. This is a case stated under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is:-Whether the giving of bullion by a dealer in exchange for purchase of ready-made ornaments manufactured by goldsmiths is a 'sale of bullion' within the meaning of the U.P. Sales Tax Act or is a barter or exchange transaction and, accordingly, does not come within the purview of the said Act 2. The facts lie within a narrow compass. The assessee is a dealer in bullion and ornaments. The relative assessment year is 1956-57. The assessee disclosed a turnover of Rs. 2,05,000 for ornaments and Rs. 1,60,014 for bullion. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the accounts and determined the turnover at Rs. 4,05,000 and apportioned this between the turnover of ornaments and bullion at Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 2,05,000, respectively. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Judge, Sales Tax (Appeals), who reduced the turnover to Rs. 3,8...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »