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.
Kanpur Agencies Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR337(All)
The assessee is a private limited company and during the accounting period July 12, 1953, to July 1, 1954, relevant to the assessment year 1955-56, it functioned as the sole selling agent of the Muir Mills Company Ltd.On the sale of each bale, the assessee realised a sum of six annas towards charity and it is said that that was shown separately in the bijak. It appears that the sums so collected were credited in separate account in the assessees books which was styled as the 'Marwari Society Charitable Account.' During the relevant account year this amount stood at Rs. 9,809. In assessment proceedings for the year 1955-56, the assessee claimed that the amount or Rs. 9,809 was not part of the sale price of the bales sold by it and could not be treated as a part of its income. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim and included the amount in the income of the assessee.The assessee also claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 9,560 on account of repairs to the premises employed by it for t...
income-tax Officer, Gorakhpur Vs. Ram Prasad and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR59(All)
V. G. OAK C.J. - These two special appeals arise out of proceedings under the Excess Profit Tax Act, 1940. There was a Hindu undivided family known as 'Ramnath Ram Prasad.' Ram Prasad was the karta of the Hindu undivided family. There was a disruption of the family some time by October 1, 1951. Under a scheme of voluntary disclosure, authorities were informed about a sum of Rs. 2,08,450 as income of the Hindu undivided family. Income-tax was assessed on that income. The authorities proceeded to assess excess profits tax on the same income. Three notices were issued under section 13(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act on February 14, 1957. Another notice under the same Act was issued on April 18, 1958, under section 15 of the same Act, Ram Prasad and others field two writ petition challenging the validity of the various notices issued under section 13(1) and 15 of the Act. The two connected special appeals by the Income-tax Officer, Gorakhpur, are directed against these orders, dated Decem...
Bharat Stores Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR651(All)
JUGDISH SAHAI J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' - to this court under the provisions of section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').The reference has been made at the instance of the assessee, Bharat Stores Ltd. Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). This case relates to the assessment made in the year 1947-48, the relevant previous year being the one ending on June 30, 1946.The statement of the case shows that the assessee, which is a registered company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, carries on the business of purchase and sale of buildings and machinery and keeps its accounts in the mercantile system.The assessee had purchased a vast area of land for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000. It sub-divided the land into a large number of small plots for the purpose of construction of residential houses. The assessee published advertisement in local newspaper...
Sukhdeo and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All151; 1968CriLJ438
S.D. Khare, J.1. This is an appeal directed against an order dated 2nd July, 1964, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi convicting all the five appellants for offences of rioting, culpable homicide not amounting to murder and causing simple hurt and sentencing each of theappellants to imprisonment for life under Section 304/149 I.P.C. to two year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 or 323/149 I.P.C., the sentences to run concurrently.[After discussing evidence and holding that it was sufficient to establish the Prosecution Case (Paras 2 to 23) the judgment proceeded.]24. Baiju had received as many as 24 injuries. He must have been beaten by several persons. The prosecution evidence is that all the five appellants had taken part in beating Baiju with lathis, and that Sukhdeo and Ram Krit only had beaten Sita Ram with lathis. The participation of all the five appellants in causing lathi injuries t...
Shervani Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR750(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), and the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such income derived from the trust property as is spent on the maintenance and support of the members of the Shervani family and relatives is exempt under section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The reference has been made in respect of the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The corresponding previous years are the financial years ending in 31st March, 1957, 31st March, 1958, and 31st March, 1959.From the statement of the case it is clear that on 13th April, 1956, Shri M.R. Shervani and Shri N.A. Shervani jointly made a declaration of the trust which was registered on the following day. A copy of ...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Meerut, and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR106(All)
This petitioner is a Hindu undivided family, whose karta is one Chiranji Lal. Chiranji Lal derived income from his share in a business. The Hindu undivided family owned some ancestral immoveable property. For the assessment year 1946-47 and 1947-48 separate returns were filed by Chiranji Lal in respect of the income from property. In those returns Chiranji Lal mentioned that the status was 'joint with sons'. He did not indicate in the return that he was the karta of the family. For the assessment year 1948-49 two returns were filed, one in the status of an individual and the other in the status of 'coowners with one-fifth share each' in the name of 'Chiranji Lal, Rameshwar Prasad, Om Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Srimati Sunhery Devi'. The return was signed by the several persons who described themselves as co-owners. It was not mentioned that they constituted a Hindu undivided family and that the return was filed by the family.The Income-tax Officer made an assessment order against Chi...
Commissioner of Income-tax U. P. Vs. Lala Girjesh Bahadur Pal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR649(All)
SAHAI J. - This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., Lucknow, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The question referred to this court for its opinion reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted rightly in holding that the sum of Rs. 64,020 was not assessable as income of the assessee in the assessment year 1956-57 ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the reference relates to the year 1956-57 for which the previous year is the year ending on March 31, 1956.It is clear from the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal that the assessee was maintaining its accounts on cash basis. For the assessment year 1956-57 the only source of income to the assessee is said to be interest on securities. The assessee had advanced larg...
Chhedilal Dilasaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR748(All)
The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on money lending and Sarafa business. It also derives income from property and dividends. On October 30, 1952, it was assessed on its total income for the assessment year 1949-50, the relevant previous year being the year ended March 31, 1949. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1950-51, the Income-tax Officer noticed two cash credit entire in the account books relating to the money lending business, one of Rs. 6,000 made on March 6, 1949 and the other of Rs. 19,000 made on March 11, 1949. The assessee explained that the sums credited represented moneys withdrawn previously in 1930 and 1937 but the Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation. He added the amount of Rs. 25,000 as income from undisclosed sources in the assessment for the assessment year 1950-51. Against the addition the assessee appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tri...
Jagannath Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR358(All)
PATHAK J. - A reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, has been made to this court for its opinion on the following question :'Whether the penalties levied on the assessee are exigible under the provisions of section 18A (3) read with section 18A (9) (b) and section 28(1) (a) ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, which admittedly before May 7, 1950, was part of a lager Hindu undivided family carrying on business under the name Baij Nath Rameshwar Prasad. During the assessment proceedings for the year 1950-51, in respect of the larger Hindu undivided family an application was made under section 25A (1) for an order that the larger family had been partitioned on May 7, 1950. That application remained pending until March 29, 1956, when an order was made by the Income-tax Officer accepting the claim and recognizing that the larger family had been partitioned on May 7, 1950. The assessee Hindu undivided family did not pay any advance tax under section 18A (3) for the...
U. P. Vanaspati Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR120(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - At the instance of the assessee, M/s. U. P. Vanaspati Agency, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), the statement of the case and the question of law, given below, has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 12,000 was an admissible deduction in working out the assessable income for the assessment year 1961-62 ?'The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1961-62, the accounting year being January 1, 1960, to March 31, 1961. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as a commission agent for vanaspati, ghee, soap, refined oil, etc. In the assessment year in question he was agent of M/s. Berar Oil Industries, Akola, in Madhya Pradesh, and Tung Bhadra Industries, Kurnool, in Andhra Pra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›