Allahabad Court May 1971 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.
Ram NaraIn Laxman Prasad Vs. Income-tax Officer, d Ward and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR233(All)
Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Ram Narain Laxman Prasad at Lucknow. It came into existence under a partnership deed dated April 20, 1964. According to the partnership deed, there were two partners, Laxman Prasad and Vinod Kumar. Two minors, Ram Mohan and Rajendra Prasad, were admitted to the benefits of partnership. Clause (2) of the partnership deed recited that on the minors' attaining majority they would automatically become full fledged partners, the existing deed would hold good and no fresh deed would be required to be executed.2. Shortly after coming into existence the petitioner firm was granted registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the benefit of registration was continued, thereafter, under Section 184(7) up to the assessment year 1966-67. For the assessment year 1967-68, a declaration in Form XII was filed by the petitioner-firm. It was a declaration made under Section 184(7) a...
Aloke Mitra Vs. Controller of Estate Duty Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1971
Reported in: [1971]82ITR430(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has submitted this statement of the case as well as a supplementary statement for the opinion of this court on a certain question of law.2. The reference arises out of the estate duty assessment of late K. M. Mitra, who died on 11th February, 1957. On his death, his son, Aloke Mitra, the present applicant, filed an estate duty return valuing the estate of the deceased at Rs. 3,74,235. This included 502 shares of Rs. 100 each held by the deceased in Mitra Prakashan (P.) Ltd. and 225 shares of Rs. 100 each held by the deceased in Maya Press (P.) Ltd. The Assistant Controller, however, did not accept this part of the return. He held that 2,002 shares in Mitra Prakashan (P.) Ltd. and 1,602 shares in Maya Press (P.) Ltd. were held by the deceased and were liable to be included in his estate. He held that the shares standing in the name of the deceased's wife and sons were held by the deceased benami in the name of the wife and the sons...
Babu Ram Gupta Vs. the U.P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh, Lucknow and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All194; (1971)IILLJ381All
ORDERG.C. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner was work-ing as the Secretary of the Co-operative Cane Development Union Limited, Begamabad Modinagar respondent No. 2 on February 4. 1969, the respondent No. 1. the U. P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh Limited. Lucknow, which is a federation of Co-operative Societies and of which respondent No. 2 is a member, passed on order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service from September 30. 1969, on his attaining the age of 55 years. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability, of the writ petition on the ground that no writ can issue to respondent No. 1 which is a private body. The preliminary objection is well founded. By this writ petition the petitioner has sought the quashing of the order of compulsory retirement as well as a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining respondent No. I from taking any action against the petitioner under Rule 11 of ...
MoinuddIn Vs. Ch. Mohammad Imam-uddIn Ashraf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All25
Gur Sharan Lal, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed by Sri R. P. Nigam, 2nd Additional Munsif, Lucknow and on appeal by the tenant, the trial court's decree was maintained by Sri B. P. Srivastava. Civil Judge Malihabad, Lucknow. The tenant Moinuddin has come up in the second appeal.2. The facts of the case are briefly these. The appellant was admittedly a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent Choudhry Mohammad Imamuddin Ashraf, A suit for ejectment and recovery of, arrears of rent was also filed by the landlord, being suit No. 201 of 1962. In that suit the allegation was that the tenancy related to an open piece of land. The tenant pleaded that the rented premises consisted not only of land but also of some roofed constructions on a part of the land and so the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was applicable to the rented accommodation and the suit could not t...
Smt. Phuljhari Devi Vs. Mithai Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All494
D.D. Seth, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 16th November 1961 in respect of the land in dispute alleged to have been executed by Uma Kant, defendant No. 3, on behalf of his wife, Smt. Subhani, defendant No. 4, in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant in this appeal is Smt. Phuljhari, defendant No. 2 in the suit. She is the wife of Mohan Nath, who was defendant No. 1.2. The plaintiff's case was that the house of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were adjoining the land in dispute. According to the plaintiff, Uma Kant, defendant No. 3, husband of Smt. Subhani, defendant No. 4, was the real owner of the land in dispute and had acquired the property benami in the name of his wife. It was alleged that on 16th November 1961 Uma Kant, acting as the agent of his wife, Smt. Subhani, entered into a contract with the plaintiff and with the consent of hiswife, defendant No. 4, agreed to execute a sale deed of the land in...
Krishna Brick Field Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC15(All)
A.K. Kirty, J. 1. The validity of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been challenged in these three writ petitions on two grounds : (1) that they infringe Article 14 of the Constitution, and (2) that they suffer from excessive delegation of essential legislative function and power.2. The petitioners are 'registered dealers' and carry on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks in Uttar Pradesh. They are affected adversely by the impugned Notifications No. ST-1363/X-1045 (1960) dated April 5, 1961, and No. ST-6438/X-1012-1962 dated December 1, 1962, issued by the State Government under Section 3-A(1) and (2) of the Act, by which sale of bricks has been subjected to a single point taxation at the rate of 7 naye paise per rupee, the point of taxation being sale by manufacturer.3. In five other writ petitions, numbered 2095, 2096, 2121, 2253 and 2971 of 1969, identical questions have been raise...
Ram Chandra Vs. Bachchu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ64
Gur Sharan Lal, J.1. Sri R C. Baipai Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge. Barabanki has made this reference under Section 438 Cr. P. C. in the following circumstances:One Ram Chandra, who was the applicant in the criminal revision before the learned Judge, was the petitioner in an application made by him before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Nawabgani Barabanki, under Section 145 Cr. P. C., giving out that he was in : possession over 88 plots of agricultural land but that the opposite parties numbering twelve wanted to occupy the land forcibly though they had no concern with the same and there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The application was admitted and Ram Chandra as well as the opposite parties were required to file written statements of their claims. The land in question was also attached. The opposite parties did not jointly claim to be interested or possessed of all the 88 plots. On the other hand, some of them claimed to be in possession by right over some plats, some...
Lalai Singh Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1773
W. Broome, J.1. This is an application Under Section 99-B, Cr.PC, asking for the quashing of the State Government's order dated 26-8-1970 (published in the U. P. Gazette of 12-91970) forfeiting a book entitled 'Samman ke liye dharm parivartan karen'. This book is a compilation in Hindi of speeches made by the late Dr. Ambedkar, exhorting the scheduled castes to throw off the shackles of caste tyranny by repudiating the Hindu religion and adopting Buddhism instead. The application has been filed by R.N. Shastri, the publisher of the forfeited book, and by Lalai Singh Yadav, the President of the Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Literature Committee. The impugned notification cites 24 passages in the book, which are objected to because they 'promote or attempt to promote on grounds of religion, caste or community disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or illwill between different religions, castes or communities and insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious belifes of a class', thereby...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganeshi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1971
Reported in: [1973]88ITR29(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. These are two references under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act and they can be conveniently dealt with together. The assessee in both these cases is one Sri Ganeshilal in his capacity as an individual. In I.T.R. No. 280 of 1965, the proceedings relate to the assessment year 1957-58, whereas in I.T.R. No. 356 of 1967 they relate to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60.2. The assessee, Ganeshilal, was karta of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his major son, Ram Charan, and a minor son, Ram Gopal. On 21st April, 1956, there was a partition in the family whereby certain assets shown in the books of the family were divided. The members agreed to divide the immovable properties belonging to the family through arbitration. The assets divided concerned the family business in cloth and banking. On the following day, i.e., on 22nd April, 1956, L. Ganeshilal, his wife, Kasturi Devi, and their major son, Ram Charan, entered into partnership and started a firm by ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M.O.U. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR343(All)
Pathak, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred over fees paid to lawyers for representing the case before the State Transport Authority and also in writ petitions before the High Court filed by the assessee against the granting of road permits to other private carriers was an admissible revenue expenditure?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, for which the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ending on March 31, 1958, and March 31, 1959.3. The assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of plying motor vehicles on certain routes. In the assessment proceedings for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 it claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,681 and Rs. 29,712, respectively, on account of fees paid to its lawyers for representing its case before the State Transport Authority and also in certain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »