Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1949]17ITR394(P& H)
This is a petition under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act for requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court the following question of law :-'Whether the expense incurred by the assessee are an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) ?'The facts giving rise to these proceedings may be briefly stated as follow : The assessee, namely, the firm Messrs. Ram Chandra Munna Lal is a joint Hindu family firm who carry on the business of cloth merchants and also of money-lending in Delhi. The assessee firm through Mahabir Prashad entered into an agreement with three others for promoting a limited company to be styled as Shahdara Delhi Iron Works, Ltd. According to the term of the agreement the assessee firm land two of the other three were to contribute a sum of Rs. 15,000 each to the capital of the company while a sum of Rs. 3,000 was to be contributed to the said capital by the fourth party. It was also agreed that during the period of the promotion o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H348
1. This is a petition under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, for requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer to this Court the following question of law:Whether the expenses incurred by the assesses are an admissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xv)?2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings may be briefly stated as follows: The assessee, namely, the firm Messrs. Bam Chandra Munna Lal, is a joint Hindu family firm who carry on the business of cloth merchants and also of money-lending in Delhi. The assessee firm through Mahabir Prasad entered into an agreement with three others for promoting a limited company to be styled as Shahdara Delhi Iron Works, Ltd. According to the terms of the agreement the assessee firm and two of the other three were to contribute a sum of Rs. 15,000 each to the capital of the Company while a sum of Rs. 3000 was to be contributed to the said capital by the fourth party. It was also agreed that during the period of the promotion of the Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR589
Chainani, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, for directions of the nature of habeas corpus. The applicant was carrying on business in Bombay in the name of Interseas Corporation as the sole proprietor thereof. In 1946 he also promoted a private limited company under the name of Allied Agencies Ltd. and became a director thereof. He was assessed to income-tax, super-tax and surcharge, including penalties, at Rs. 10, 17, 259-3-0 for the year 1943-44. A notice calling upon him to pay this amount was issued by the Income-tax authorities. He, however, did not pay it. The Income-tax authorities, therefore, wrote to the Collector of Bombay and asked him to recover the amount in the manner provided in Section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Sub-section (2) of this section empowers the Collector to recover the amount as if it was an arrear of land-revenue, or as if a decree for that amount had been passed by a civil Court. On May 17, 1948, the Collector att...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom94
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum, in a partnership action, and the facts leading up to this litigation may be briefly stated.2. A partnership was started between the plaintiff's father and defendant 1 in 1904 and the plaintiff's father died on 30th April 1927. The plaintiff filed the suit from which this appeal arises for dissolution of partnership and for accounts alleging that even after the death of his father the partnership continued. On 23rd August 1935, the plaintiff applied for amending the plaint for alleging an alternative cause of action, and the alternative cause of action was that in the event of its being held that there was no subsisting partnership after the death of the plaintiff's father, accounts should be taken on the footing that the partnership stood dissolved on the death of the plaintiff's father. That application was rejected by the trial Court, and the trial Court holding that there was no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ813
1. This is an application under S. 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 (Act XXIII [28] of 1981) for setting aside an order of forfeiture of security made on 16th May 1948.2. The petitioner before us, Shri K. Narendra, is the editor, printer and publisher of an made on 9fch February 1948 by Mr. S. Khurshid, Chief Commissioner, Delhi, the Petitioner, as the publisber of that newspaper, was required to deposit security of Rs. 3,000. On 18th February 1948 the security so demanded was duly deposited. By an order, being order No. F. 8 (11)/48- Press, Passed on 15th May 1948 the aforesaid Chief Commissioner, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 1 (a) of s. 8, Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 declared the said security as forfeited to His Majesty. The ground for Such forfeited, as recited in the order itself headed 'Ek Dukhi Dil Ki Pur Dard Pukar' and a news time headed 'Maulana Azad Aur Kidwai Working Committee Se walk out Kar Gae' respectively containing matter of the nature...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR971
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta in its appellate jurisdiction dated April 5, 1946, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction dated March 28, 1945.2. The appeal arises out of a suit by way of originating summons instituted by the appellant for the construction of the will of his father the late Rai Bihari Lal Mitra.3. The facts are not in dispute. The testator was a wealthy Hindu governed by the-Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. He died on February 7, 1933, leaving him surviving his widow Sreemutty Nayani Mitra, his only son the appellant Aniruddha Mitra, and the wife of the appellant, Sreemutty Nivanani Mitra.4. At the time of the testator's death the appellant and his wife had no children. On July 4, 1934, the appellant took respondent No. 2 Aiabinda Mitra in adoption as his son. He was born on October 19, 1932.5. On July 5, 1931, the testator executed his last will whereby he appointed r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC244
Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta in its appellate jurisdiction dated 5th April 1946, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction dated 28th March 1945. [2] The appeal arises out of a suit by way of originating summons instituted by the appellant for the construction of the will of his father the late Rai Bihari Lal Mitra. [3] The facia are not in dispute. The testator was a wealthy Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. He died on 7th February 1933, leaving him surviving his widow Sreemutty Nayani Mitra, his only son the appellant Aniruddha Mitra, and the wife of the appellant Sreemutty Nivanani Mitra. [4] At the time of the testator's death the appellant and his wife had no children. On 4th July 1934, the appellant took respondent 2 Arabinda Mitra in adoption as his son. He was born on 19th October 1932. [5] On 5th July 1931, the testator executed his last will whereby he app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR894
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a division bench of the High Court of Bombay cancelling a writ of prohibition issued by Coyajee J. against the Industrial Tribunal to which a dispute between the Western India Automobile Association and its workers had been referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947.2. Though a number of points were raised before Coyajee J. and before the division bench, the principal question raised by this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act to entertain the dispute which had been referred to it. The controversy is firstly as to the scope of the Act, i.e., whether the Act has application to cases of private employers or is limited only to cases where either the Central or the Provincial Government, or a local authority is the employer, and secondly, as to whether the dispute as to reinstatement of certain dismissed employees is a matter which is referable to the Tribunal.3. On an app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1950]18ITR1(P& H)
HARNAM SINGH, J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad bench, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The questions referred for decision to the high court are :'(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case and in view of the terms of section 25A of the Act, an order under section 25A should have been passed by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment year 1943-44 although the partition the partition on the basis of which the order was claimed took place beyond the year of account, the income from which was the subject-matter of assessment ?(2) Whether a reference to arbitration with a view to have the joint family property partitioned in definite portions legally amounts to a partition of the joint family property amongst the various members or groups of members in definite portions within the terms of sections (1), of the act ?'The facts so far as material are that the applicant were assessed as Hindu undivided family during the year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori223
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Zamindar of Shergada Estate for delivery of possession of 39.49 acres of land in village Brahmahatya within the ambit of his zamindari and for other reliefs.2. The plaintiff's case is that the suit lands bearing survey Nos. 60, 107 and 115 are his 'hetta' or private lands and that the defendants No. 6, 7, 8 and 20 took them on lease for Fasli 1348 and entered upon the lands as his tenants, that the lease was renewed by a registered document for the subsequent Fasli, but that at the instigation of one Gobind Pradhan the defendants refused to surrender possession and claimed occupancy rights in them. The dispute between the parties led to initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order upholding the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to file the suit for declaration of his title and for a permanent injunction restraining the said de...
Tag this Judgment!