Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1966]60ITR314(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., submitted this statement of a case inviting this courts answers to the following questions :'1. Whether, on proper interpretation of the agreements and documents constituting the firm of Musaddilal & Sons, Sri Kishan & Sons, Ramanand Ram Kishan, Radheylal & Sons, Kailash Brothers and Motilal & Sons and also the deed dated November 17, 1952, governing the assessee firm, Musaddilal, Sri Kishan, Ajodhia Prasad, Radhey Lal, Kailash Nath and Amar Nath, Motilal were partners in the assessee-firm in their individual capacities or in their representative capacities of those firms ?2. Whether, in law, there was a sub-partnership between the partners of the assessee-firm and the partners of the firms mentioned above 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the application signed by the individual partners for renewal of registration of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1939]7ITR269(All)
IQBAL AHMAD, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act (Act No. XI of 1922) by the Commissioner of Income-tax in accordance with the order of this Court passed on an application filed by firm Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup hereinafter referred to as the assessee firm and the questions of law that fall to be decided are as follows :-(1) Whether the partnership between Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup and Bulaqi Das Ramgopal was a valid partnership in law in view of the provisions of the Partnership Act of 1932.(2) Whether the assessee firm in its corporate capacity being in point of fact a partner in another firm and having as such invested its funds in such partnership and having sustained losses by reason of such partnership, such losses cannot in law be treated as the losses suffered in the course of business by the assessee-firm, and whether such losses cannot be allowed in the course of assessment.(3) Whether the sum of Rs. 51,000 interest paid to Bihari Lal Ram Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All44
Desai, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Shahjahanpur for enhancement of the sentence passed on Basudeo under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Bales, read with Rule 9, U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1942, and Section 353, Penal Code. Basudeo has been fined Rs. 500 for the offence of Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Bales, and Rs. 100 for the offence of Section 353, Penal Code. He was prosecuted along with his brother Mahanand, father Kedar Nath and Munim Shankar Lal, but Mahanand, Kedar Nath and Shankar Lal were acquitted by the Magistrate. Basudeo appealed from his conviction to the Sessions Judge, who on 16-7-1948 declined to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence. The reference of the learned District Magistrate is dated 11-5-1948.2. In reply to the notice given by this Court for enhancement of the sentence Basudeo has appeared and challenged the legality of his conviction. There is practically no dispute about the facts and we were not addressed at all o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1964]52ITR121(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM C.J. - These two references under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act deal with the same question and are disposed of in one judgment. The question referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in S.J.C. No. 37 of 1962 is as follow :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessees application for registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1958-59 was barred by limitation under rule 2(a) of the Income-tax Rules?'In S.J.C. No. 36 of 1962, the same question has been referred to for the assessement year 1959-60 instead of 1958-59.The material facts are thes : A partnership firm consisting of (1) Bholanath Saha, (2) Bhagirath Saha and (3) Mohanlal Saha was registered as a firm under the Indian Partnership Act on January 28, 1946, bearing No. 3 of 1946. It was also registered under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act in due course and was assessed as a firm for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 60(1995)DLT561
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) NO. 2619/92 is filed by Gurmukh Singh Anand against his brother Surja Singh Anand and his sons for the dissolution of the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendants and to take accounts of the said partnership business. (2) It is the case of the plaintiff that the late Sardar Pachu Singh father of Gurmukh Singh and defendant Surja Singh had started the business of distribution of petroleum products, like petrol and lubricants in the name and style of M/s. Gurmukh Singh at 2775, Lodium Road, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The said Sardar Pachu Singh expired in the year 1954 and his sons, plaintiff Gurmukh Singh and defendant Surja Singh inherited the said business and then they entered into a partnership and carried out the said business partnership from 1954 to 1992. But plaintiff Gurmukh Singh had gone to United States of America in 1972 and he was there for about 10 years. When he came back he found that defendants had opened a separate bank account and instead o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)24CTR(Guj)184; [1981]131ITR42(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. The four pillars on which the approach bridge to taxation matter is build are : (1) Not a rupee more than is legitimately due. But so also not a rupee less than is so due lest the burden of one who is really liable is not shifted on to the shoulders of others. (2) No avoidable hardship or inconvenience to the small taxpayer and a sympathetic handling in respect of his unintentional faults and failing of an essentially technical character. But an unyielding unindulgent approach in accordance with the letter-cum-spirit of the law in dealing with assessees with an inclination to avoid tax by means subtle or crude. (a) A pragmatic interpretation of law and facts informed with the anxiety not to violate common sense or the spirit of the law which does not encourage circumvention by over-smart manipulations designed to hoodwink the law in substance while showing excessive regard for the outer form. (4) A balanced rope-walker's stance. 2. Commonsense as also the letter and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1970Guj269
Shelat, J. 1. The suit from which this appeal arises was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Ahmedabad for recovering in all a sum of Rs. 17,131-86 p. Due as per statement of accounts dated 27-10-1954 with future interest and costs of the suit, against the defendants-appellants. 2-5. Xx xx xx xx2. Two points have been urged by Mr. Mody, the learned advocate for the appellants, before us. The first is that the trial court has erred in holding that the amount due from defendant No. 1 the firm running in the name of Ramprasad Chhotalal was in the nature of a deposit so as to be governed for the purpose of limitation by Art. 60 of the Indian Limitation Act. According to him, it was merely a loan and not a deposit and would therefore, be governed by Art. 57 or 59 of the Indian Limitation Act. As the period of Limitation in that event commences from the date when the loan is made, this suit filed after a period of three years provided for the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal569
P.C. Mllick, J. 1. This is a suit for partition of the estate let by Shaik Md. Ibrahim who died intestate in or about September 1942. He left him surviving his widow Khodajia Bibi, four sons Nurul Hasan, Amir Hasan, Manir Hasan and Zahir Hasan and two daughters Badru'nnessa and Kamirunnessa as his heirs and legal representatives under the Sunni School of Muhammadan Law by which he was governed. This suit has been instituted by the eldest son Nurul Hasan who is the sole plaintiff. The other heirs have been impleaded as defendants. Md. Ibrahim died possessed of considerable properties. One of such properties consists of eight annas share in a very valuable property at Calcutta known as 'Palace Court' situate at premises No. 1, Kyd Street. The two other co-sharers of Md. Ibrahim in the said property are Shamsul Hasan and E. Jacob. They also have been impleaded as defendants. It is pleaded that Ibrahim held certain properties jointly with his relatives Md. Sulaiman, Md. Siddique and Shamsu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1969]71ITR513(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This reference, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been made in the circumstances hereinafter related.The year of assessment, with which we are concerned, is 1958-59, the corresponding accounting year being the calendar year ending with December 31, 1957.The assessee is a firm of 11 partners, constituted by a deed of partnership, dated May 14, 1956. Out of the 11 partners, 9 were minors when the deed was executed. Of the minors, Ratish Kumar Agarwalla (party of the fourth part in the deed of partnership) attained majority during the relevant year of accounting. Registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act had been accorded to the assessee-firm on the basis of the partnership deed, dated May 14, 1956, for the assessment year 1957-58, which was the first year of the business. When renewal of this registration was asked for, in the assessment year 1958-59, the prayer was refused by the Income-tax Officer. The order of the Income-tax Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1963]49ITR698(Cal)
G. K. MITTER J. - This reference under section 66(1) of the Act is at the instance of the assessee, a firm which was denied registration under section 26A for the period January 1, 1953, to July 1, 1953.Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. was a firm composed of eight partners under a written agreement of November 14, 1949. There was a change in the constitution of the partnership in the year 1953, when two of the partners retired and a new partner was taken in. This was recorded in writing by a document styled 'supplementary deed of partnership' bearing date July 2, 1953, executed by six out of eight partners who did not retire and the new partner who taken in. As the rights of the parties are regulated by these two documents it is necessary to note the relevant provisions thereof. The following are the relevant clauses of the deed of 1949 :'Clause 2 :- The partnership business shall be carried on as long as the senior partners or a majority of them so desire provided that if any partner shall be de...
Tag this Judgment!