Allahabad Court March 1967 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.
Gangadhar Baijnath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR500(All)
R. S. PATHAK J. - The assessee, a partnership firm, advanced two loans, one of Rs. 97,00,000 on May 1, 1946, and the other of Rs. 5,10,000 on May 10, 1946, to M/s. Bagla Jaipuria and Company. On October 17, 1946, Messrs. Bagla Jaipuria and Company paid a sum of Rs. 1,77,232 to the assessee on account of interest on the two loans.The Income-tax Officer, proceeding on the consideration that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, assessed Rs. 1,60,000 of the total amount of interest as income for the assessment year 1947-48 and the balance, Rs. 17,232, as income for the assessment year 1948-49. Upon appeal by the assessee against the assessment for the assessment year 1947-48, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the sum of Rs. 1,60,000 was not taxable as income for that assessment year as it could not be said to have accrued during the previous year ending October 17, 1946. He excluded that sum from the assessment.On June 12, 1963, the Income-tax Officer iss...
Gulshan Khandsari Udyog Vs. Union of India (Uoi), New Delhi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All75; [1968(17)FLR172]; (1969)IILLJ477All
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. 1. The main point raised by this and the companion writ petition is whether Khandsari is sugar within the meaning of the first schedule to the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. 2. The petitioner is a partnership concern and runs a Khandsari unit in the district of Muzaffarnagar. It manufactures Khandsari along with Gur and rab. The petitioner unit was established in 1958, under a licence granted under the Factories Act to employ 100 labourers in its unit. In 1952 the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 was enacted. The Act was a welfare legislation and was intended to provide for the institution of the provident fund for the employees of factories and other establishments. It applied to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule 1 and in which 20 or more persons are employed. Section 4 empowered the Central Government to add to the first schedule any other industry in respect of the employees whereof it is of opinio...
Girja Shanker Dubey Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC127(All)
M.H. Beg, J. 1. The following questions have been referred to us under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act :1. Whether the petitioner was liable to pay any sales tax on Chilean nitrate, a fertilizer, even though it could be used for purposes other than fertilizer ?2. Whether the Chilean nitrate imported by the petitioner is a mineral imported in the natural form, there being no chemical process involved in it and it is dug from the sun-baked earth in North Chile (South America) and packed in bags as such ? 3. Whether the commodity which the petitioner deals is a fertilizer pure and simple or a chemical or even chemical fertilizer ?4. Whether the word 'fertilizer' mentioned in Notification No. ST-119/X-928, dated 7th June, 1948, includes 'chemical fertilizer' as such 2. The circumstances under which the above-mentioned questions arose are as follows : The assessee M/s. Girja Shanker Dubey and Company describes itself as 'chemical dealers' at Firozabad, but it claims to be 'an agricultu...
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. City Magistrate and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ21All
Satish Chandra, J.1. The State Electricity Board prays that the order of the Additional District Judge and the prescribed authority passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, be quashed.2. The State Electricity Board is a body corporate constituted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 5 of the Electricity (supply) Act, 1948. In October 1963 the board took over the electrical undertaking of the Jhansi Electricity Supply Company, Ltd. It has also reemployed the persons working in the company. The board fixed the salary and dearness allowances of these persons at rates mentioned in annexure A to the petition. Generally the salaries of the employees ware enhanced in comparision to what they were being paid previously. In April 1965 the president of the Jhansi Electricity Supply Workers' Union instituted an application under Section 13 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, on behalf of various workmen. It was alleged that the workmen were entitled to payment of dear-food allowanc...
Ram Manohar Lohia and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All100; 1968CriLJ281
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. This is a petition for writ of Habeas Corpus by seven persons who were confined as undertrial prisoners in the district Jail of Agra at the time of making the petition. Petitioner No. 1 is Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia who is a member of the Lok Sabha; petitioner No. 2 is Sri Brij Raj Singh who, according to the petition, is an old worker of the Samyukt Socialist Party and who was member of the Lok Sabha from 1957 to 1962; petitioner No. 3 is Sri Baloji Agarwal, who is a member of the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from the Agra City Constituency; and the remaining petitioners are Sri Hukum Singh Parihar, Sri Ram Sanehi Lal Yadava, Sri Kitab Singh Yadaya and Sri Ganga Prasad Sharma who, according to the petition, are active workers of the Samyukt Socialist party. The opposite parties to the petition are the State of Uttar Pradesh, Sri Ravi Shanker Johri, District Magistrate Agra, and Sri K. C. Seth, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Agra. 2. The facts which led up...
Sri Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Patti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All18
R. Chandra, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal, and arises out of a suit for injunction and removal of constructions.2. The parties are the residents of village Datt Nagar Bisan. Pargana and District Unnao. Dhurpat Singh and Bahrain Singh filed the suit alleging that there existed a pathway in village abadi plots Nos. 102 and 111, and it had been used by the inhabitants of the village and the public, from times immemorial. On 15th. September, 1955 the defendants wrongfully blocked the passage by making certain unauthorised constructions On these grounds, they claimed a decree for removal of the complained of constructions, and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction in the use of the passage.3. The defedants contested the suit on a variety of grounds On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsif framed the following issues 1 Whether there exists any public way as alleged by the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the defendants have caused any obstructions ...
Ganesh Lal Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1968] 68 Itr 9 ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR696(All)
PATHAK J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred this case for the opinion of this court on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in refusing registration under section 26A of the Act ?'Under a deed of partnership executed on January 10, 1948, a firm was constituted for the purpose of carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Ganeshi Lal Lakshmi Narain Lal. The members of the firm were Muneshwar Prasad and Satchidanand, an one Om Kumar, a minor, was admitted to the benefits of partnership. The partnership firm was registered annually under section 26A up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1958-59. For the assessment year 1959-60 an application for renewal of registration signed by Muneshwar Prasad, Satchidanand and Om Kumar was filed before the Income-tax Officer. It appears that Om Kumar had meanwhile attained majority and had, therefore, signed the application for renewal ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. Vs. Rukmanand KediA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR557(All)
PATHAK J. - The assessee, Shri Rukmanand Kedia, was a partner of a firm, Messers. Nathu Ram Harakh Chand. His son, Vishnu Kumar, a minor, was admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firm. Assessment proceedings for the year 1960-61 were taken against the assessee as an a sum of Rs. 13,188 received by the son from the firm. This amount included a sum of Rs. 5,791 credited to the account of the son by way of interest. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, upon appeal by the assessee, excluded the amount of interest from the income of the assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal endorsed the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It found that the sum of Rs. 5,791 represented interest earned by the son on the capital contributed by him.At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion :'Whether the sum of Rs. 5,791 being interest earned by the minor son of the assessee on the capital sub...
Abdul Shakoor and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR467(All)
The judgment of the court was delivered byJAGDISH SAHAI J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, Messrs. Abdul Shakoor & Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee').The statement of the case relates to the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58.One Abdul Shakoor carried on business under the name and style 'Messrs. Abdul Shakoor & Co.'. Up to the year 1955-56 he was assessed in respect of the business that he carried on in the status of an individual. For the assessment year 1955-56 two returns were filed in the name of Messrs. Abdul Shakoor & Co. - one of the period January 1, 1955, to June 30, 1955 in the status of an individual and the other for the period July 1, 1955, to December 31, 1955, in the status of the firm.It was alleged on behalf of the assessee that on July 30,...
Madan Gopal Radheylal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR735(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - By this reference under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether the assessment of wealth-tax on the assessee Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62 both inclusive is intra vires the Constitution ?2. Whether, for the assessment year 1961-62 the Wealth-tax Officer was justified in valuing the closing stock of the shares at market value instead of at cost price as shown by the assessee ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which deals in shares of companies and has also income from dividends, properties and share in the partnership firm of M/s. Radheylal Garg and Company.The assessee was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62. The main objection taken by the assessee before the Wealth-tax Of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »