Allahabad Court October 1969 Judgments
Dal Chand Chittar Mal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR710(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. The question for consideration in this reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') is whether a certain amount of compensation paid to an assessee constituted income under Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It owned a certain building at Hathras, known as Chhittermal Dharinshala. The building was being used by the assessee as a godown for its business till the year 1947. In 1947 the building was requisitioned by the State Government for storing foodgrain An order was passed under the U.P. Accommodation Requisition Ordinance' 1947. The assessee claimed compensation for the loss of the Dharmshala! The parties could not agree as regards the amount of compensation payable to the assessee. The dispute was referred to the munsif of Hathras. On September 22, 1956, the munsif, Hathras, decided that the assessee was entitled to receive from Government compensation at the rate...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Surat Singh Vs. Shiv Kumar Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1971All170; 1971CriLJ580
Gyanendra Kumar J. 1. By his order dated 9-5-1969, Katju, J. referred three questions to a larger Bench, arising in a contempt case. This is how the matter has come up before us.2. The facts of the case are quite simple. The applicant, Ram Surat Singh, was posted as Tahsildar-Magistrate, 2nd Class at Kadipur, district Sultanpur between the 1st of February, 1964, and the 6th of June, 1965. He retired from service on 30-6-1966. During the period of his posting at Kadipur he decided complaint case No. 14 of 1964 Ram Samujh Pandey v. Ram Nawal Pandey, in which the accused was convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. and was sentenced to two months' R. I., on 8-1-1965. The accused preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 5-7-1965- Ram Nawal then filed a criminal revision' before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was dismissed on 14-7-1967, but the sentence of two months' R. I. was reduced to the period already undergone. The applicant also decided another complaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P., Allahabad Vs. Mahanth Laxmi NaraIn an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All488
G.C. Mathur, J.1. The main question for determination in these cases is whether the two suits, out of which the special appeals and the civil revision arise, are covered by Sub-section (iv) (a) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, as amended in U. P. In both the suits, reliefs for declaration and injunction have been prayed for. The contention of the Chief Inspector of Stamps is that both the suits are to obtain declaratory decrees where the consequential relief of injunction has been prayed for and are, therefore, governed by Sub-section (iv) (a) of Section 7 of the Act. According to him, since the consequential relief in both the suits is with' reference to immovable property, court-fee has to be paid on the full value of the immovable property. The plaintiffs in the two suits, on the other hand, say that the injunction prayed for is not a consequential relief to the declaratory relief and the suits are not governed by Sub-section (iv) (a). According to them they are liable to pay a f...
Tag this Judgment!JagatnaraIn Durga Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR214(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Messrs. Jagat Narain Durga Prasad, Kanpur, is the assessee. The assessment year is 1960-61. The previous year ended on October 30, 1959. The assessee-firm carried on forward business in several commodities. At one time it was believed that sales tax was leviable on forward contracts. Upon that belief, the assessee-firm collected sales tax from its constituents on forward contracts, and subsequently deposited the amount so collected into the Treasury. Subsequently, there was a decision of the High Court to the effect that no sales tax was leviable on forward contracts. The State Government, therefore, refunded an amount of Rs. 13,272.37 on account of sales tax unnecessarily deposited by the assessee-firm. When the Income-tax Officer took up the assessment for the year 1960-61, he examined the relevant account in the books of the assessee-firm. It was found tha...
Tag this Judgment!Jhabboo Vs. Laxmi Narayan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All595; 1970CriLJ1459
O.P. Trivedi, J.1. This application in revision has been filed by Jhaoboo against Laxmi Narayan and others. The facts leading to this case may be summarised as follows:--Sewak Ram, father of Laxmi Narain, opposite party No. 1 and Rajendra Narayan, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 145, Cr. P. G., on September 4, 1964, against his son Rajendra Narayan, opposite party No. 2; upon which a preliminary order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi, on 12-11-1964 directing attachment of the agricultural land, subject-matter of dispute. On 1-2-1965, the agricultural plots mentioned in para. 1 of the application and certain crops detailed therein were placed in the custody of Jhabboo, applicant as a supurdar by S. I. Jamna Narain of Police Station, Baghauli and a duly executed supurdaginama was obtained from Jhabboo. Meanwhile, Sewak Ram had died and this fact was reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 12-11-1964, who passed the following order:-- 'I hav...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Laxman Sugar Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR123(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J.1. This is a reference made by the Delhi Bench (B) of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal relates to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57. The relevant previous years ended on the 30th September, 1954, and 30th September, 1955.2. The assessee, who is the applicant in this case, is a firm manufacturing sugar. It owns its mills at Mohiuddinpur in the district of Meerut. For the relevant assessment years it was not accorded registration under Section 26A of the Act. The firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated the 21st of August, 1939. There were two sets of partners, namely, the partners of the first set represented by Lala Suraj Bhan, the karta of the joint family, styled as M/s. Dinanath Nanak Chand ; the second set consisted of four partners, namely, (1) Lala Devi Prasad, (2) Lala Jwala Prasad (3) Lala Sheo Prasad, (4) Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu Prasad Lalta Prasad Vs. the U.P. Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All594
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Meerut Range has submitted the instant statement of the case and has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case gurlota is taxable under the Explanation to Section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act?'.2. The assessment giving rise to this reference is in respect of the year 1958-59 and has been made under the provisions of the Central Act. Messrs. Sethu Prasad Lalta Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the asses-see) at whose instance the instant reference has been made, are the 'dealers' in the present case. They have, during the year 1958-59 disclosed a turnover of Rs. 8,887,34 P. in respect of gurlota against C Forms and of Rs. 1,01,015.86 P. without C Forms. Inter-State sales of gurlota, with effect from 1-10-1958 to 31-3-1959, with C Forms, were disclosed by the assesses for Rs. 1,11,143.34 P. and without C Forms for Rs. 21,816. The assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Central India Agencies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR959(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1959-60, the corresponding previous year being the period from the 1st May, 1957, to the 30th April, 1958.2. The assessee, who is the applicant in this case, is a private limited company. It acquired 10,000 shares of Messrs. Ranapur Commercial Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as ' the managed-company ' in the year 1945, for the value of Rs. 5 each. In the same year the assessee-company acquired the managing agency of the managed-company. On the 20th of January, 1958, the assessee-company applied for transfer of the entire lot of 10,000 shares to Messrs. Oriental Engineering and Commercial Corporation, Calcutta, and eventually transferred the entire lot of shares on the 7th March, 1958. The sale was made at the rate of Rs. 4.25 per share to the said Messrs. O...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Turpentine and RosIn Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR533(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereafter referred; to as,' the Act'). The assessee is a company manufacturing and selling rosin and turpentine. For a long time the company was using electricity on D.C. system. In order to reduce electricity charges the company decided to change over from D.C. system to A.C. system. The change involved a total expenditure of .Rs. 1,11,407. The company claimed a deduction of Rs. 27,852 as development rebate. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The decision was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But the assessee succeeded before the Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to development rebate under Section 10(2)(vib) of the Act, The Tribunal was not sure whether all the equipments used in the change over was new. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Income-tax Officer to dispose of the claim of the assessee fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Babban Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR601(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J. 1. My learned brothers Jagdish Sahai and Beg JJ. have, after a good deal of controversy, agreed upon the following question to be referred to a third judge for opinion in this case: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the cash deposit of Rs. 6,531 can be said to come out and covered by the addition of Rs. 18,000 to the business profits of the assessee ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference have been fully stated in the dissenting orders of my learned brothers, but I would recount the same very briefly here. The assessee in this case is a dealer in medicines and in its return for the assessment year 1960-61 it declared a total sale of Rs. 3,86,329 with a gross profit thereon of Rs. 21,149. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the gross profit as disclosed by the assessee and made an addition thereto amounting to Rs. 22,634. There was, in the business books of the assessee, a cash deposit of Rs. 6,531 in the name of his son, Krishna Mohan. The I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »