Kolkata Court February 1941 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.
Jogendra Krishna Banerji and ors. Vs. Sm. Subasini Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal541
Nasim Ali, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for declaration of plaintiff's mourashi mokorari tenancy right in the lands recorded in the C. S. Khatians Nos. 425 and 178 of mouza Punja Sahapur in the district of 24-Parganas. The facts which are not in dispute in these two appeals are these:1 (a). The lands recorded in C. S. Khatian No. 425 appertain to touzis Nos. 159, 206 and 210 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate. Defendants 1 to 12 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Banerji defendants') are owners of 111/2 annas share and defendants 13 to 19 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mondal defendants') are owners of the remaining 41/2 annas share of these three touzis.(b) In the year 1254 B.S. (1847) one Earn Chandra Dass was in possession of the lands of this khatian as a tenant under the predecessor in interest of defendants 1 to 19 at an annual rent of three sicca rupees (Ex. D 2). In .1275 B.S. (1868-1869) Digambar Das, son of Earn Chandra Dass, was in possession of this tenancy at an...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Samarendrajit Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal719
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff corporation claims Rs. 1581-0-9, on account of consolidated rates payable in respect of premises 83, Dharamtola Street, and a declaration of first charge on the premises for that sum and a decree under Order 34, R.4 according to Form No. 54, Appx. D of Schedule 1, Civil P.C. The arrears date from the fourth quarter of the year 1931 up to the fourth quarter of the year 1937-38. Up to the first quarter of 1936-37 the full owner's share has been charged and after that date approximately half the owner's share. The full occupier's share has been charged from the fourth quarter of 1932-33 up to the first quarter of the year 1936-37 except for one quarter. The premises consist of an old residential house with some godowns or outhouses which have apparently been turned into shops on the roadside. The defendant Samarendrajit Shaw says that the house has been vacant at all material times but the shops have been let for part of the time. This being ...
Mangniram Bangor and Co., Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR573(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The question submitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax is-'Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rupees two lacs fifteen thousand one hundred and seventy-six incurred for the purpose mentioned in the said Rule nisi is an allowance within the provisions of Section 10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income-tax Act, being Act XI of 1922.'The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in Calcutta. Its business includes dealing in stocks and shares, silver and gold, and money-lending. It also has a cloth agency and owns a jute press.In the firms accounts under the heading business a deduction was made of a sum of Rs. 2,24,707 on account of litigation expenses. This sum was made up of a somewhat smaller sum of Rs. 2,15,176 which was spent on a particular civil suit and also other legal charges making up the balance of Rs. 2,24,177. We are only concerned with the item of Rs. 2,15,176. That was money spent by way of legal expenses in defending ...
In Re: Magniram Bangor and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal297
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The question submitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax is:Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of rupees two lakhs fifteen thousand one hundred and seventy six incurred for the purpose mentioned in the said Rule Nisi is an allowance within the provisions of Section 10 (2)(ix), Income-tax Act, being Act 11 of 1922?2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in Calcutta. Its business includes--dealing in stocks and shares, silver and gold and money lending. It also has a cloth agency and owns a jute press. In the firm's accounts under the heading 'business' a deduction was made of a sum of Rs. 2,24,707 on account of litigation expenses. This sum was made up of a somewhat smaller sum of Rs. 2,15,176 which was spent on a particular civil suit and also other legal charges making up the balance of Rs. 2,24,707. We are only concerned with the item of Rs. 2,15,176. That was money spent by way of legal expenses in defending a suit...
In Re: Hon'ble Nawab K. Habibulla Bahadur of Dacca
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal598
Derbyshire, C.J. 1. The assessee for the assessment year 1938-39 was assessed under Section 23(1), Income-tax Act, on his own return in respect of an item of Rs. 49,500 which was shown in the return under the head 'salaries'; in a note attached to the return it was stated to be 'current and arrear allowance drawn as mutwalli from the wakf funds.' After the assessment was made the assessee appealed to the appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground, amongst other things, that the sum, Rs. 49,500, was shown in the return by mistake and that though the return itself did not indicate it, the amount mentioned was really agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2, Income-tax Act, and as such was not liable to tax. The assessee stated that the first return was drawn up by his officers and that he being a busy gentleman, had not had time to scrutinize the return before he signed it, and that the return was made in error; the sum ought to have been excluded as it was really agricult...
K. Habibulla Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR292(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The assessee for the assessment year 1938-39 was assessed under Sec. 23(1) of the Income-tax Act on his own return in respect of an item of Rs. 49,500 which was shown in the return under the head 'salaries'; in a note attached to the return it was stated to be 'current and arrear allowance drawn as mutwalli from the wakf funds.'After the assessment was made the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground, amongst other things, that the sum of Rs. 49,500 was shown in the return by mistake and that though the return itself did not indicate it, the amount mentioned was really agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act and as such was not liable to tax.The assessee stated that the first return was drawn up by his officers and that he being a busy gentleman, had not had time to scrutinise the return before he signed it, and that the return was made in error; the sum ought to have been excluded as it was really agr...
In Re: Susil C. Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal666
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In or about April 1937, it was contemplated to enlarge the Indian Iron and Steel Co., to which Messrs. Martin and Co., were the managing agents. It was proposed to issue both fresh shares and fresh debentures to the public for the purpose of the enlargement. One of the existing shareholders, Mr. Khandelwala, who lives at Ahmedabad, came to Calcutta in order to nee to his interests and rights as a shareholder of the company, especially in connexion with certain proposals which Messrs. Martin and Co., were putting forward. Mr. Khandelwala consulted the petitioner, Mr. Susil Chandra Sen, who occupies an eminent position in the legal world in Calcutta. He is both an attorney and an advocate, who practices in this Court. Mr. Sen interviewed Messrs. Martin and Co., in connexion with his client's interest and also attended a meeting of the Indian Iron and Steel Company's share-holders which was held on or about 19th April 1937. He attended that meeting to represent the inte...
Susil C Sen Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR261(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - In or about April, 1937, it was contemplated to enlarge the Indian Iron and Steel Company of which Messrs. Martin & Co., were the Managing Agents. It was proposed to issue both fresh shares and fresh debentures to the public for the purpose of the enlargement.One of the existing shareholders, Mr. Khandelwala, who lives at Ahmedabad, came to Calcutta in order to see to his interests and rights, as a share-holder of the company, especially in connection with certain proposals which Messrs. Martin & Co., were putting forward.Mr. Khandelwala consulted the Petitioner, Mr. Susil Chandra Sen, who occupies an eminent position in the legal world in Calcutta. He is both an Attorney and an Advocate, who practices in this Court.Mr. Sen interviewed Messrs. Martin & Co., in connection with his clients interests and also attended a meeting of the Indian Iron and Steel Companys share-holders which was held on or about April 19, 1937. He attended that meeting to represent the interes...
Janakinath Guha Ray Vs. Korban Ali (on His Death, Bazler Rahaman and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal85
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and cesses in respect of a tenancy which previously bore a rental of Rs. 74-13-0 a year. The plaintiff's case was that there being an increase in the area of the tenancy, the tenants agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 90-8-3 a year amicably and that was the rate at which rents were sought to be recovered from the tenants for the period in suit. In the alternative the plaintiff's ease was that even if no such amicable arrangement was proved, he was entitled to an increased rent for excess area on the basis of the kabuliat which created the tenancy and the total rent payable on the present area of the holding-would be Rs. 100-14-0. The defendants in their written statement denied that they ever agreed to pay any increased rent and contended inter alia that there was no increase in the area of the tenancy and that they held the lands in suit at a consolidated rent ...
Royal Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR589(Cal)
DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - The Royal Insurance Company does business in the United Kingdom, India, and other parts of the world. It has done business in India for some sixty years. During that time it has carried on Life Assurance business.Previous to the year in question the company had been assessed under Rule 35 of the Income-tax Rules which provides as follows :'The total income of the Indian branches of non-resident insurance companies (Life, Marine, Fire-Accident, Burglary, Fidelity, Guarantee, etc.,), in the absence of more reliable data may be deemed to be the proportion of the total income, profits or gains, of the companies, corresponding to the proportion which their Indian premium income bears to their total premium income. For the purposes of this rule, the total income, profits or gains of non-resident Life Assurance Companies whose profits are periodically ascertained by actuarial vauation shall be computed in the same manner as is prescribed in Rule 25 for the computation of in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »