Allahabad Court July 1971 Judgments
Prem NaraIn Vs. Hirday Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All47
Pathak, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for partition.2. The appellant's father was the owner of a house. He mortgaged one-sixth interest in it in favour of the respondent in the year 1910. The mortgagor being unable to pay the mortgage money the respondent filed a suit in 1916 for recovery of the amount. The suit was decreed. In execution of the decree a one-sixth interest in the house was put to auction, and was purchased by the respondent. Subsequently, he obtained symbolic possession of the interest purchased by him. Alleging that thereby he had become a co-sharer in the house with the appellant's father, he filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of a one-sixth share.3. The suit was contested on the ground, inter alia, that the house was ancestral property, that the appellant was in exclusive possession over the house since the death of his father in 1921, that despite various acts relating to the property by the appellant hostile to t...
Tag this Judgment!Karuna Shanker Dube Vs. Krishna Kant Shukla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All478
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 Krishna Kant Shukla filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow against opposite parties 3 to 5 in respect of certain property situate in the city of Lucknow alleging that they are the co-sharers of this property and claiming determination and declaration of their shares and a decree for partition. During the pendency of the suit Krishna Kant Shukla, the present petitioner, filed an application before the Civil Judge on 11-9-1967 under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure for being made a party-defendant to the suit on the ground that he was a co-sharer in the disputed property. No orders were passed on this application by the Civil Judge and while it was pending on 2-6-1969 the parties to the suit, namely, opposite parties 1 to 5 came to a private settlement and filed a compromise which was accepted by the Court and a decree in terms of the compromise was ordered to be prepared. It is against this order of the Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Chand Hoti Lal Babu Ram Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: [1973]89ITR298(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity of a notice under Section 148, Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1955-56. In that year, the petitioner-firm was carrying on business, inter alia, of commission agency on the sale and purchase of silver bars, as a partnership concern. It was duly assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1955-56. The Income-tax Officer, District III, A-Ward, Kanpur, asked Hotilal, one of the partners of this firm, to produce the account books of the firm for the Samvat years 2010-11 and 2011-12. On being produced, the Income-tax Officer impounded these books of account on 24th September, 1965. On 27th September, 1965, the Income-tax Officer issued a letter to the firm indicating that in the cish book he had found certain transactions on the 28th of June, 1954, relating to the sale of 22 silver bars, but the corresponding credit for the value of the silver bars had not been given to a...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: [1973]88ITR347(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee in this case is Sri Kali Nath, in his capacity as an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1949-50, corresponding previous year ending on March 31, 1949.2. The facts giving rise to the present reference are that one Henry Celestine John claimed that he had 1/20th share in certain industrial properties known as John Mills property and one-fourth share in some bungalows. Other members of the family of Johns denied the claim of Celestine John, and alleged that he had no share either in industrial properties or in the bungalows. Henry Celestine John went away to England in 1911, and did not return to India thereafter. It is alleged that taking advantage of his absence, other members of the family, who were in India, created charges on properties and protracted litigation ensued. Henry Celestine John decided to sell his undivided shares and interests in the properties. As the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Rudra Pal Singh Vs. Ram Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All67
ORDERR.B. Misra, J.1. These are two connectedpetitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They arise out of a consolidation matter. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. The relationship of the parties will be clear from the following admitted pedigree:-- SHEODUTT SINGH __________________________________|______________________________ | | | Devidin Singh Sheonath Singh Prithipal Singh | | | __________________ ______________________ Ramratan | | | | | Mahipal Singh Jagannath Rambur Sharda Singh Rajaram | (dead) (dead) | |__________ ________________________ | | | ___________|_________ Jagatpal Singh Bajrang Singh | | (dead) | Raghuraj Ratipal Singh _____________________|___________ | | | | | Rudrapal Singh Rambahadur Singh Danbahadur Singh |_____________________________________________ | | | Rampal Singh Anantpal Singh Bhartpal Singh (dead)3. The dispute between the parties relates to...
Tag this Judgment!Ajai Singh Chirangi Lal Vs. District Magistrate, Pilibhit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All190
R.L. Gulati, J.1. Ajai Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the respondent, District Magistrate, Pilibhit, dated September, 27, 1969, declaring the petitioner to be a tout and banning his entry in the compund of the collecto-rate.2. It may be stated at the outset that no counter-affidavit has been, filed by the respondent. Therefore, the facts stated in the petition shall have to be accepted as correct 3. The petitioner at the material time was a clerk of an Advocate practising at Pilibhit. He has been working as a clerk with legal practitioners since 1964. On September 6, 1968 certain members of the Collectorate Bar Association, Pilibhit, passed a resolution recommending to the District Magistrate Pilibhit to declare the petitioner and one other person as touts. The District Magistrate on the receipt of a copy of the resolution issued a notice under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act on January 10, 1969 requiring the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Matanhelia Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR346(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the accounting party, Behari Lal Matanhelia, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has referred the following question for the opinion of this court, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the balance of Rs. 48,513 remaining at the date of death of the deceased out of the amount credited to the wife's account by debiting the account of the deceased in the books of Messrs. Sheo Prasad Kanhaiyalall, Bahraich, in which the deceased was a partner, was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property passing or deemed to pass on his death ?'2. One Sri Kanhaiyalall Matanhelia died on 21st July, 1957. Beharilal Matanhelia, as the accountable person, filed a statement before the Assistant Controller, Estate Duty, Varanasi, declaring the total value of the properties passing or deemed to pass on the death of Kanhaiyalall as Rs. 1,72,670. After considering the material produced before him,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopal Krishna Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: [1973]89ITR27(All)
ORDERH.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 6,600 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 was rightly cancelled? '2. The assessee (individual) filed a return of his income for the assessment year 1956-57 on 19th of September, 1956. The assessment was completed on 21st of November, 1956. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee did not include in his return the value of certain perquisites which were received by him from the Raymond Woollen Mills, Bombay, as its director. He, therefore, reopened the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In response to the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, for proceedings under Section 147(a), the assessee submitted a return declaring his income for that assessment year as Rs. 94,280 as aga...
Tag this Judgment!L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR575(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee, Messrs. L. H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills Ltd., Pilibhit. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 22,332 and Rs. 50,000 were admissible deductions in computing the taxable profits and gains of the company's business ?'2. The relevant assessment proceedings relate to the assessment year 1956-57.3. During the year 1954-55, relevant to the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 22,332 to the District Magistrate, Pilibhit, as its contribution towards the cost of construction of Deoni Dam Majhola Road. It also contributed a further sum of Rs. 50,000 in connection with the second five year plan sponsored by the U. P. Government for the construction of a net work of roads in the State. These two contributions were made under a scheme known as S...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR439(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee, Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills. Hardoi.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted a statement of the case and has referred the following question for the opinion of this court, in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 14,333 is an expense allowable under Section 10(1) or Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act '3. The assessee carries on the business of manufacturing sugar. It appears that a scheme was sponsored by the Government of India and the Government of Uttar Pradesh for developing roads. In this connection, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 14,333 towards the cost of construction of those roads. The assessee also paid various sums of money, in the years relevant to the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60, towards the cost of construction of roads under the same scheme. In all these ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »