Allahabad Court February 1968 Judgments
Vithaldas Kedar Nath Vs. Income Tax Officer District Ii (ii) Kanpur an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All390
Oak, C.J.1. These three connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of three connected proceedings for rectification under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The facts of the three cases are similar. They raise common questions of law. It will, therefore, be sufficient to refer to the facts of one of the three cases.2. Sri Vithaldas is the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 21 of 1967. On 15-12-1955 the Income-tax Officer, District II, Kanpur passed an assessment order against the petitioner for the year 1952-53. His total income was fixed at Rupees 57,992/-. This total income included a sum of Rs. 21,291/- being the petitioner's share income from a certain firm, M/s. Bhawani Prasad Girdhar Lal, Bombay. The assessment was subiect to rectification under Section 35 of the Act On 27-3-1956 the Income-tax Officer, Bombay assessed the firm M/s. Bhawani Prasad Girdhari Lal, Bombay. The total income of the firm was fixed a...
Tag this Judgment!Vithaldas Vs. Income-tax Officer, District Ii(ii), Kanpur.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR204(All)
V. G. OAK C.J. - These three connected petitions under article 226 of the Constitution arise out of three connected proceedings for rectification under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts of the three cases are similar. They raise common questions of law. It will, therefore, be sufficient to refer to the facts of one of the three cases.Sri Vithaldas is the petitioner in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 21 of 1967. On December 15, 1955, the Income-tax Officer, District II, Kanpur, passed an assessment order against the petitioner for the year 1952-53. His total income was fixed at Rs. 57,992. This total income included a sum of Rs. 21,291 being the petitioners share income from a certain firm, M/s. Bhawani Prasad Girdhar Lal, Bombay. The assessment was subject to rectification under section 35 of the Act. On March 27, 1956, the Income-tax Officer, Bombay, assessed the firm, M/s. Bhawani Prasad Girdhar Lal, Bombay. The total income of...
Tag this Judgment!Balmukund Upadhya Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All210
S.N. Singh, J.1. This second appeal and Civil Revision No. 9 of 1967 arise out of a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff-appellant which was partly decreed and partly dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 30-9-1965. It is not necessary to give in detail the facts of this case, for the lower Appellate Court has not considered the merits of this case but has dismissed the appeal on the preliminary point of limitation. The necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal and the civil revision are as follows:--2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for partition at first in the Munsifs Court valuing it at Rs. 2,000. An objection was taken by the defendant about the valuation of the property and a commission was issued. The Commissioner found the valuation to be Rs. 18,220 with the result that the plaintiff having claimed half share in the property, the valuation of his share came to Rs. 9,110. The learned Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1968
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas458(All)
Gyanendra Kumar, J.1. These are three connected appeals against the judgment and order of Takru J. dated October 16, 1967, arising in the following circumstances. Messrs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., Lucknow (hereinafter called ' the company ') took a loan of Rs. 10,50,000 on December 19, 1950 from Messrs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (hereinafter called ' the Corporation '), on mortgage of its entire land, buildings and machinery, stipulating repayment by instalments in seven years, beginning from 1953. Due to the company's failure to pay the stipulated instalments, the Corporation took possession of the mortgaged property from the company. The company was also indebted to a number of unsecured creditors, so the company discussed its position with them as well as the Corporation and with the concurrence of all the creditors, it made an application to this court in July 1954, under Section 158 of the then Indian Companies Act, 1913, for sanction of the scheme of arrangement ann...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Dwarika Prasad Vs. Jai Jai Shri Kunj Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All220
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. We are required to answer this question:'Whether, in the circumstances of this case, Section 47 of the Encumbered Estates Act bars the entertainment of the objection by the creditor relating to ownership of the property in dispute.'2. Let us first give the salient facts, One Jai Narain had a big estate; he had also considerable liabilities. In 1921 he gifted, inter aha, some of his zamindari properties (the property in dispute included] to his wife, Chimma Kunwar. She was made the absolute owner of those properties. In 1936 she made an application under Section 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In her written statement under Section 8 of the Act she mentioned the property in dispute in this appeal as her own. No objection was filed. In the list of properties sent to the Collector under Section 19 (2), the Special Judge included this property. The Collector auction-sold it. Sri Gopal Gaushala Society (hereinafter called 'the Society') pur...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR253(All)
V. G. OAK C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Santosh Kumar is the assessee. He filed a return for the assessment year 1957-58. The Income-tax Officer made a provisional assessment under section 23B of the Act. The assessees liability was fixed at Rs. 12,477. On January 21, 1960, a demand notice accompanied by the assessment form was issued. The notice was served on the assessees minor brother, Suresh Kumar. The assessee had not given any specific authority to his minor brother to accept service of notice on behalf of the assessee. On January 29, 1960, an application was made to the Income-tax Officer raising objections against the assessment order under section 23B. On February 11, 1960, another application was moved on behalf of the assessee through his advocate asking for time for payment. That application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. Penalty of Rs. 1,500 was imposed under section 46(1) of the Act on the ground that no tax ha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. Vs. B. N. Talwar.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: [1968]69ITR704(All)
R.S. PATHAK J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has invited the opinion of this court on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, salary and allowances of Rs. 38,918, Rs. 35,184 and Rs. 38,300 drawn by B.N. Talwar for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, and 1960-61, respectively, in terms of the agreement made on May 16, 1965, between him and the Allied Motors Private Ltd. is assessable in the hands of the assessee Hindu undivided family consisting of B.N. Talwar and his son ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of B.N. Talwar and his sons.Rai Bahadur Parmanand Talwar had six sons, of whom B.N. Talwar is the eldest. The father carried on a prosperous automobile business at Peshawar under the name 'Khyber Automobiles'. In September, 1942, he made a settlement of varying amounts in favour of each of the six sons and also made over the automobile business to the sons on condition that they carried it on in partnership. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Trilok Singh and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR29(All)
V. G. OAK C.J. - These are three connected proceedings under section 66, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In all the three cases the assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of Trilok Singh and his sons.The India Motor Transport Co. Ltd. is a private limited company incorporated in 1945. The total issued shares are 4,086 of the face value of Rs. 100 each. There are only three shareholders, S. Trilok Singh, S. Satwant Singh and S. Anup Singh. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, consisting of Trilok Singh and his sons, holds 2,501 shares. The remaining shares are held by Satwant Singh, who is Trilok Singhs real brother, and by Anup Singh, who is Trilok Singhs brother-in-law. The company carries on the business of plying passenger buses and goods trucks. S. Trilok Singh was appointed managing director of the company for a period of 20 years on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 500.The question arose whether the salary of Rs. 6,000 received by S. Trilok Singh annually should be treated ...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1968All591; [1969(18)FLR197]; (1969)ILLJ811All
M.H. Beg, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the order of the official liquidator dated September 27, 1967, allowing the claim of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P., for Rs. 1,445.24P. against the Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. in liquidation. The official liquidator, however, treated the claim as an ordinary claim and did not give it the preference which, it is contended for the appellant, the claimant is entitled to receive.2. The appellant, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, relies on Section 11 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, which provides,inter alia, that where an employer is a company under liquidation, the contributions to be made by the employer to the provident fund ' are to be paid in priority to all other debts in the distribution of...the assets of the company being wound up...' The only reply put forward was that Section 530 of the Companies Act of 1956 (this corresponds to Section 230 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Sanghvi (P.S.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through Ministry of Transport ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ474All
Satish Chandra, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is prayed that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner on 27 August 1966 be quashed.2. The petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Aerodrome Officer by the Government of India on 28 March 1942. He was confirmed with effect from 4 November 1947. He was promoted to the po3t of Aerodrome Officer and was confirmed on that post in June 1957. In February 1960, he was posted at Agartalla (Tripura). There, he received several adverse entries from the Director-General of Civil Aviation. The petitioner made representations against them, but the same were rejected. The petitioner made certain allegations against the Director-General that he was harassing the petitioner and maligning his career. In 1964, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on account of certain allegations against him. Thereafter, a charge sheet was served on him on or about 28 August 1965 under Rule 15 of the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »