Kolkata Court January 1944 Judgments
Joy Chand Seraogi and anr. Vs. Dole Gobinda Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal272
1. The facts of the case, which are material for this appeal are as follows: Four annas share of Touzi No. 199 of the Murshidabad Collectorate belonged to Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, as mutwalli of a wakf estate. In August 1901, he as mutwalli settled the same in patni right to Daiba Kumari Debi and others, the executors to the estate of Indra Nayaran Singh at an annual rent of Rs. 2369. For brevity's sake this patni would hereafter be called the 'four anna patni.' The said executors in their turn settled the same in darpatni right to Tarini Prosad Dhur at an annual rent of Rs. 2369 on 29th April 1905. This darpatni would for brevity's sake be hereafter called the 'four anna darpatni.' There was a covenant in the darpatni kabuliat (Ex. 11) by which the darpatnidar undertook to pay by barat the patni rent to the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad. Tarini Prosad Dhur in his turn granted three separate sepatnis to three persons at different dates of different portions of his darpatni lands. O...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chowringhee Properties Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal53
Gentle, J.1. The assessees are a limited company owning house properties of considerable value. The assessment concerned is for the year 1939-40 in respect of the accounting year 1938-39. In this reference obtained at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, there are two questions raised, they are:Question 1. -- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the debentures have been kept alive for the purpose mentioned in Section 127, Clause (3), Companies Act. Question 2. -- If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative, whether interest accrued due and payable in respect of these debentures and should be treated as allowable deduction under Section 9(1) (iv), Income-tax Act. 2. It was conceded at the outset, by learned Counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax, that the answer to the first question should be' in the affirmative. Therefore, consideration is required only with respect to the second question. Before stating the facts it is convenient to s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal. Vs. Chowringhee Properties Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR434(Cal)
GENTLE, J. - The assessees are a limited company owning house properties of considerable value. The assessment concerned is for the year 1939-40 in respect of the accounting year 1938-39. In this reference, obtained at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, there are two questions raised. The are :-Question 1. - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the debentures have been kept alive for the purpose mentioned in Section 127, clause (3), of the Indian Companies Act.Question 2. - If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative, whether interest was due and payable in respect of these debentures and should be treated as allowable deduction under Section 9 (1) (iv) of the Income-tax Act.It was conceded at the outset by learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax, that the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative. Therefore, consideration is required only with respect to the second question.Before stating the facts it is conven...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Malati Bala Deb Gupta Vs. Narendra Chandra Bhattacharjee S/O Bhara ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal253
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This Rule is directed against an appellate judgment of S.K. Sen Esq., District Judge of Tippera, dated 21st July 1942, affirming an Order made by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court of that place by which he rejected an application presented by the petitioner undersection 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: The lands in question are situated within the Brahmanberia Municipality and are included in two separate tenancies recorded under two separate khatians, one comprising C.S. plot 1335 and the other relating to C.S. dags 1336 and 1337. These lands were held originally by three brothers Kunja Kishore, Rajkishore and Krishnakishore, who had equal shares in them. The share of Rajkishore in both the tenancies passed by transfer to one Kalikishore Pal sometime in the year 1923 and on 28th November 1933, the one-third share of Krishnakishore in all these lands was sold by his heirs to the present petition...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Prasad Shaw Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal65
Gentle, J.1. The short point raised in this reference is whether under Section 28, Income-tax Act, a notice is required to be given for purposes of an assessee showing cause why a penalty should not be imposed before the close of the assessment. The relevant facts are shortly as follows. On 23rd January 1941, an assessment was made upon the assessee and at the same time the Income-tax Officer discovered that the assessee had not returned income and had deliberately failed to disclose it. On 25th January notice was served upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be inflicted as provided in Section 28. The notice was returnable for 10th February 1941. It does not appear on what date the assessee showed cause, but undoubtedly he did so and on 2nd May 1941, the maximum penalty was imposed being l1/2 times the amount of the tax which the non-disclosure, had it succeeded, would have avoided. The material provisions of Section 28 are as follows:Sub-section (1) 'If the Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Vs. Kumar Bimalendu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal302a
1. The facts so far as they are relevantfor the purpose of this appeal are these: The defendant placed the plaintiff in charge of certain litigations started by one Rasik Chandra Khan against the defendant. The plaintiff spent Rs. 700 out of his own pocket in conducting these criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings came to an end in July 1931. There was an adjustment of account between the plaintiff and the defendant in September 1935. On 5th January 1938 the plaintiff raised the present suit for recovery of these 700 rupees along with certain other sums due to him from the defendant. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit to recover Rs. 700 from the defendant advanced by him from his own pocket in conducting the criminal case is barred by limitation. Mitter J. has held that Article 61, Limitation Act, applies to the facts of the present case. The learned judge has further held that even if Article 83 applies, the suit is barred by limitation....
Tag this Judgment!Guru Prosad Shaw Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR233(Cal)
GENTLE, J. - The short point raised in his reference is whether under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act a notice is required to be given for purposes of an assessee showing cause why a penalty should not be imposed before the close of the assessment.The relevant facts are shortly as follows. On January 23, 1941, an assessment was made upon the assessee and at the shame time the Income-tax Officer discovered that the assessee had not returned income and had deliberately failed to disclose it. On 25th January notice was served upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be inflicted as provided in Section 28. The notice was returnable for the 10th February 1941. It does not appeal on what date the assessee showed cause, but undoubtedly he did so and on May 2, 1941, the maximum penalty was imposed being 1 1/2 times the amount of the tax which the non-disclosure, had it succeeded, would have avoided.The material provisions of Section 28 are as follows :-Sub-Section (1) : 'If th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sudha Tarangini Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal83
McNair, J.1. We have before us ten references from the Board of Agricultural Income-tax in Assam in which a simple question has been referred to this Court for its opinion. In Reference NO. 15 of 1942 certain preliminary points have been taken on behalf of the assessee. As a matter of convenience we consider that it is unnecessary to deliver separate judgments in each reference but we will consider the various points that have arisen in one judgment which will govern all the references. In Reference No. 15 of 1942 Raja Prabhat Chandra Barua was assessed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Gauhati, in respect of the agricultural income-tax for the year 1939-40. In computing the total agricultural income of the year, certain sums being the equivalent of 15 per cent. of the current demand of rent for and of arrear realizations on account of salami and forest during the year were excluded by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on account of the deduction permissible under Section 7(c) ...
Tag this Judgment!Naba Kumar Singh Dudhoria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal104
McNair, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Question (1):Whether in an appeal under Section 30(1) the validity of an assessment under Section 23 (4) can be challenged when no proceeding under Section 27 of the Act was taken to cancel the order under Section 23 (4).2. It appeared that the question had been framed by mistake leaving out the words 'under Section 33 (1) from a decision in an appeal' after the words with which the question starts, namely, 'whether in an appeal,' and the question as re-framed after consultation and agreement with the advocates appearing now reads, 'whether in an appeal under Section 33 (1) from a decision in an appeal under Section 30 (1)' and so on as originally framed. The second question is,Whether on the facts of the case the lands taken over by the assessee in satisfaction of a debt should be independently valued and such valuation should be considered for the purpose of arriving at the figure...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Prosad Rajghoria and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal470
1. These three appeals are in three suits instituted by the Corporation of Calcutta for the recovery of consolidated rates, in respect of three premises, No. 104, Narkeldanga Main Road, No. 1, Bahir Surah Road and No. 29, Kankurgachi Road. The defendants in all the three suits are Bhowani prosad Bannerjee, Mathuraprosad Rajghoria and his four sons, Sohanlal, Balkissen, Raj Kumar and Bejoy Kumar. In one suit there are some other defendants--the Sarkars and another, who have no interest now in the property. Mathura Prosad's sons have been joined as defendants apparently because Mathura Prasad is governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The suits are for recovery of the arrears by enforcement of charges which the Corporation of Calcutta claims to have on the premises under the provisions of Section 205, Calcutta Municipal Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1923, hereafter called the Act). It is the common case of the parties that all three premises are bustees and the huts which have been let ou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »