Kolkata Court December 1950 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.
Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Administrator-general of Bengal, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Cal329,[1952]21ITR241(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66, Income-tax Act. The question referred to us is as follows:'Whether on a proper construction of the will dated 12-8-1927, made by Manicklal Dutt, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Trust created by the will was a public religions trust and therefore wholly exempt from taxation under Section 4(3) (i)?' 2. Manicklal Dutt in his lifetime was a Hindu governed by the Dayabhag and lived at premises No. 31 Hidaram Banerjee Lane. He had an undivided half share of and in a dwelling house in Raja Kisory Mohan Goswami Street in Serampore which was the family dwelling house. He had other immovable properties and was possessed of various movable properties, such as Government securities, bonds, shares, etc. He made his last will and testament on 12-8-1927. The testator was a widower. He had no son or daughter and it appears from the will that he intended to make gift of the whole of his estate for charitable and religious purposes for the ...
Hind Estates Ltd. Vs. C. S. Peters and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1950
Reported in: [1951]20ITR67(Cal)
DAS GUPTA, J. - This is an application on behalf of Hind Estates, Ltd., inter alia for a writ of mandamus or writ of like nature directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and each of them to forbear from giving effect to the notices issued by them to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on diverse dates including 16th May, 1950, or from taking any further steps in pursuance of the said notices or taking or continuing any proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949.The case of the petitioner before me is as follows : The petitioner, Hind Estates, Ltd., is a private limited company incorporated in India under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The registered office of the company is situate at No. 220/1, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 by a registered lease dated the 13th December, 1948, granted in favour of the petitioner a lease for 99 years commencing from 1st January, 1949, of a number of properties situate in Calcutta at a rent o...
Birla Brothers, Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal194,[1951]21CompCas189(Cal),[1951]19ITR623(Cal)
Harries, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Branch for the opinion of this Court upon the following question:'In the circumstances of this case is the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal right in deducting proportionate expenses incurred by the applicant company in British India in the management of Jaijeerao Cotton Mills Limited, Gwalior in order to determine the profits of the Gwalior Mills which are to be exempted from taxation under Section 14 (2) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act?'2. The case is concerned with assessments made on the assessees in respect of the years 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1945-46. The point raised is the same in respect of all three assessments and therefore only one question of law has been formulated.3. The assessees Messrs. Birla Brothers Limited are a company residing in British India which have business activities in Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and in the Indian State of Gwalior...
Muhammad Ziaul Haque Vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1950
Reported in: 55CWN232
Sinha, J.1. This is an application by the Plaintiff for the grant of an injunction against the Defendant, its servants and agents, from taking possession of,and or interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff and or from interfering with the Plaintiff's businessand or cancelling the license granted to the Plaintiff, pending the disposal of the suit, The application was moved ex parts before Guha, J., during the vacation and an interim injunction was obtained on October 14, 1950 On October 28, 1950, an application was made by the Defendant for an order vacating the injunction. Both these applications have come up before me one after the other and may be disposed of at the same time.2. The facts are briefly as follows:One Saidunnessa Bibi is the owner of premises No. 213, Lansdowne Road. The Plaintiff is the husband of Saidunnessa Bibi. She granted a lease of the premises to the Defendant. The original lease was granted in February, 1938 and the present lease which is still subsistin...
Bhupendra Kumar Vs. Indian Union and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal712,55CWN251
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah dismissing the-plaintiff's claim for Rs. 243-4-0 for compensation for non-delivery of a consignment of suit cases despatched from Sealdah on 3-10-1947 to Tezpur, Assam, a station served by the Tezpur Baliapara. Railway. The plaintiff has sued three defendants-the Indian Union representing the East Indian Railway, the same representing the Assam Railway and the Traffic Superintendent of the Tezpur Baliapara Railway, a company's railway. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has dismissed the claim on the ground that the plaintiff's agent at Tezpur on being informed of the arrival or discovery of the consignment refused to take delivery and that, therefore, he cannot maintain a suit for damages.2. The goods in question consisted of 14 small leather attach cases and 6 leather suit cases and according to the plaintiff they were arranged in seven packets some of the smaller cases being placed within ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Loke Nath Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Cal140,55CWN195
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This rule raises a question of the interpretation of Article 8 (1) (a) of the Indian Independence (Rights, Properties and Liabilities) Order 1947. The plaintiff has claimed for short delivery of goods despatched in March 1947 before the 'appointed day' from one station for delivery at another on the then Bengal Assam Railway. The stations admittedly are now both within Pakisthan.2. The question is whether, under the Order, the Dominion of Pakisthan or the Dominion of India is to be held liable for the alleged short delivery if it is found that the plaintiff has a legal claim on whichever is in law responsible. The Dominion of Pakisthan will be liable under the provisions of Article 8 (1) (a) if (as from the appointed day) the contract is for. purposes which as from that day are exclusively the purposes of the 'Dominion of Pakisthan'. But I am quite unable to see how it can be said that the contract for carriage of goods in March 1947 before the Dominion of Pakisthan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›