Kolkata Court May 1950 Judgments

Sm. Purnasashi Devi Vs. Nagendra Nath Bhattacharjyee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1950Cal465

Das Gupta, J.1. This reference was made by the Sessions Judge of Burdwan recommending that an order passed by the learned Magistrate, Asansol, directing payment of Rs. 60-8.0/- per month and 11 Sali Bhati rice and 2 Sali, of other variety of rice or its money equivalent per year to his wife Sm. Purnasashi Devi for her maintenance and the maintenance of his legitimate child by her should be set aside.2. Three grounds have been put forward by the learned Judge for his recommendation. The first is that as the learned Magistrate was of the view that the maintenance had been paid but the rate was inadequate, it could not in law be said that the husband had neglected or refused to maintain his wife. In my judgment, this ground cannot prevail. When the law says 'neglects or refuses to maintain', it cannot but mean 'neglects or refuses to maintain properly.' Suppose one rupee was paid for the maintenance of a wife for a month, that would be paying some amount of maintenance, but it would be ri...

indra Singh and Sons Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal349,[1951]21CompCas172(Cal),54CWN721,[1951]19ITR1(Cal)

Harries, C.J.1 This is a reference under Section 66, Income-tax Act, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessees. The following question has been formulated for the opinion of the Ct. :'In the facts and circumstances of the case, is the surplus realised by the Co. on the sales of shares & Securities a taxable income ?'2. The assessees Messrs Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. are a private limited Co. incorporated under the Companies Act. It was incorporated in the year 1935 & sometime later it took over from Sardar Sir Indra Singh & Sons the Managing Agency of a Co. known as the Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. The memorandum of association of this Co. contained among others the following objects :To carry on & undertake any business, transaction operation or work commonly carried on or undertaken by bankers, capitalists, promoters, financiers, concessioners, contractors, merchants, managers, managing agents, secretaries & treasurers.To purchase or otherwise acq...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir S.M. Bose

Court: Kolkata

Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessee is Sir S.M. Bose, the present Advocate-General of West Bengal. In the assessment for the year in question the income from certain properties purchased by the assessee in the names of his sons and made the subject matter of a trust in favour of his daughter were added to his own income. The assessee appealed, but on appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that these properties were the subject-matter of a bona fide trust and that the income from these properties belonged to the daughter and could not be regarded as part of the income of the assessee. The income was therefore excluded from the total income of the assessee for the purposes of the assessment. There was an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax contended that the Appellate Assistant C...

Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Sir S. M. Bose.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1952]21ITR135(Cal)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byHARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessee is Sir S. M. Bose, the present Advocate-General of West Bengal. In the assessment for the year in question the income from certain properties purchased by the assessee in the names of his sons and made the subject matter of a trust in favour of his daughter were added to his own income. The assessee appealed, but on appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that these properties were the subject-matter of a bona-fide trust and that the income from these properties belonged to the daughter and could not be regarded as part of the income of the assessee. The income was therefore excluded from the total income of the assessee for the purposes of the assessment. There was an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-t...

Hazarimal Hiralal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessees. The question formulated for the opinion of the Court is as follows:Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest; credited to Mst. Jabbar's account since her death was not an allowable* deduction under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The assessees were a firm, Hazarimal Hiralal. It is a registered partnership consisting of three partners carrying on an extensive business as importers of piece-goods. One of the partners, Bhudarmal died and as usual in Marwari partnership, he was succeeded by his son, Hulaschand, who, being a minor, was admitted to the benefits of partnership in place of his father. Later Hulaschand was married and in 1932 he had one daughter of the name of Kamala Bai, his wife's name being Mst. Jabbar. It was found that in the year 1935 Hulaschand's capital account with the firm stood a...

Hazarimal Hiralal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1952]21ITR113(Cal)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byHARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessees. The question formulated for the opinion of the Court is as follows :-'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest credited to Mst. Jabbars account since her death was not an allowable deduction under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act.'The assessee were a firm, Hazarimal Hiralal. It is a registered partnership consisting of three partners carrying on an extensive business as importers of piece-goods. One of the partners, Bhudarmal, died and as usual in Marwari partnership, he was succeeded by his son, Hulaschand, who, being a minor, was admitted to the benefits of partnership in place of his father. Later Hulaschand was married and in 1932 he had one daughter of the name of Kamala Bai, his wifes name being Mst. Jabbar. It was found that in the year 1935 Hulaschands...

Muktipada Dawn Vs. Aklema Khatun

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1950Cal533

R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 9 and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of possession after declaration of her title to the properties in suit. There is a further prayer that it may be declared that a certain decree and the proceedings in execution thereof are not binding against her on the ground that though she had not attained majority before the relevant time she was described in those proceedings as sui juris. 2. The undisputed facts may be shortly stated. Some of the defendants and predecessors in interest of some others had brought a suit (T. S. No. 87 of 1940) against the plaintiff and the pro-forma defendants claiming partition of the properties described in Schedule Ka to the plaint. The suit was decreed ex parte on 10th September 1940 and in execution of the decree for costs defendants 1 to 8 had put up to sale the property described in Schedule Kha to the plaint, which was alleged to have been in the exclusive possessio...

Rampooria Cotton Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax

Court: Kolkata

Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessees. The question which has been formulated for the opinion of the Court is as follows:Is it open to the Rampooria Cotton Mills Ltd., to exercise the option referred to in the second proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?2. The assessees are a limited company which acquired a cotton mill from Messrs. Hazarimal Hiralal in the year 1942. This mill was in existence before 31st March, 1936, and until the date of transfer to the assessees had been worked by Messrs. Hazarimal Hiralal.3. Messrs. Hazarimal Hiralal who had operated the mill between the period September, 1939, and the year 1942 determined their standard profits on the basis of a standard period. The present assessees continued the same method between 1942 and the commencement of the chargeable accounting period, 1st July, 1944. During that peri...

Rampooria Cotton Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1952]21ITR160(Cal)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byHARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessees. The question which has been formulated for the opinion of the Court is as follows :-'Is it open to the Rampooria Cotton Mills Ltd., to exercise the option referred to in the second proviso to Section 6(1) of Excess Profits Tax Act ?'The assessees are a limited company which acquired a cotton mill from Messrs. Hazarimal Hiralal in the year 1942. This mill was in existence before March 31, 1936, and until the date of transfer to the assessees had been worked by Messrs. Hazarimal Hiralal.Messrs. Hazarimal Hiralal who had operated the mill between the period September, 1939, and the year 1942 determined their standard profits on the basis of a standard period. The present assessees continued the same method between 1942 and the commencement of the chargeable accounting period,...

M.K. Ispahani Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1953Cal314,[1952]21ITR490(Cal)

Sinha, J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act read with Section 66(1), Income-tax Act.2. The question referred to is in these terms: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle IV, Calcutta, was competent to make the Excess Profits Tax assessment under Section 14(1), Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, for the chargeable accounting period ending 31-12-1941, corresponding to the previous year relevant to the Income-tax Assessment for 1942-43?'3. The Reference arises out of an assessment for Excess Profits Tax for the chargeable accounting period commencing on 1-1-1941, and ending on 31-12-1941, the corresponding assessment year under the Income-tax Act being 1942-43.4. On 24-2-1943, the Income-tax Officer, Companies District No. II, made the income-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1942-43. He was the Officer who was exercising the fun...