Kolkata Court January 1944 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.
Mrs. Sudha Tarangini Debya and Another, in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR241(Cal)
McNAIR, J. - 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 by two 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% of the current demand of rent for and of arrear realisations 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) of the ...
Maharaja Sris Chandra Nandi of Kasimbazar Vs. Mahammad Ibrahim Meah Mu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal383
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. It arises in connection with a suit for contribution. The appellant deposited the arrears of revenue due on a certain Noabad Taluk in Order to save it from being sold. He claimed contribution on the basis of the shares owned by himself and the various, defendants. The calculation upon which the claim was based was set out in a statement attached to the plaint. There was a further prayer (Ga) to the effect that, if any modification became necessary, the suit might be decreed in accordance with the findings of the Court. The suit was contested by defendant 1 alone. He neither admitted nor denied the share which was attributed to him in the plaint. His case was that contribution should be levied not on the basis of the shares of the parties but upon the assets of the last settlement. Prima facie it is not very easy to see what this means. His case, however, purported to be based upon the decision of this Court in 1. Lalmohan Thakur v. Nanda Lal ('12) 15...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›