Kolkata Court January 1951 Judgments

Dibakar Mukhopadhyay Vs. Bimal Chandra Sinha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal409

Harries, C.J.1. This is an appln for leave to appeal to the S. C. from an appellate decree of this Ct dated 10-5-1950, affirming a decree of a learned Subordinate Judge made in favour of the pltfs.2. The pltfs brought a suit for rent of a patni for the years 1350 to the Pous kist, 1352 B. S. at the annual rate of Rs. 5368/6/- with certain cesses. The defence to the suit was that the pltfs were not entitled to 16 annas of the landlord's interest, that a good portion of the land comprised in the tenure had been lost by diluvion & as such the defts were entitled to a substantial abatement of rent, & there was a further plea of payment.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the pltfs were entitled to the 16 annas of the landlord's interest & that there had been no payment. On the question of diluvion the Subordinate Judge held that the deft had failed to prove what abatement in the rent he was entitled to.4. Before a Bench of this Ct the only point argued was that the learned Subordina...

Commr. of Income-tax Vs. Jiwanmal Bhuturia

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal540,[1951]19ITR444(Cal)

Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act in which the following question has been framed for the opinion of the Court:'Whether in the fact and circumstances of this case and upon a proper construction of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the loss of Rs. 21862/-out of the total loss in the silver account carried forward from the 1940-41 assessment can be adjusted against the profits of the money-lending business in the assessment year 1941-42?'2. The assessee carried on business in silver, hessian, jute etc. and also had a money-lending business. The assessment year in question is the year 1941-42. The profit on the silver business was computed at Rs. 26801/- but in the jute hessian etc business there was a loss of Rs. 18228/-. The profits in these activities which are referred to as the speculation business for the assessment year was therefor...

Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court: Kolkata

Harries, C.J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the assessees by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act in which the following question is framed for the opinion of the Court:Whether the sum of Rs. 3,27,840 received by the applicant company from the Government of India in the circumstances of this case is taxable as profits under Section 10 (2) (vii) of the Income-tax Act?2. The assessees are the well-known Electric Supply Company which provide this city with electricity. The assessees had a stand-by electricity generating plant at Bhatpara about sixteen miles from Calcutta. The plant was not in use, but it was kept as a stand-by or reserve in the event of the main generating plant breaking down.3. It appears that the Government during the war desired to acquire this plant, but the company did not want to sell. Eventually the Government on 10th April, 1942, served a requisition order upon the assessees under the p...

Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal Vs. Jeewanlal Ltd., Ca ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1951]20ITR39(Cal)

BANERJEE, J. - In this reference we are required to give out opinion on the following question :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of these cases, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the directors of the respondents company had a controlling interest in it as contemplated by Section 2 (21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act.'This reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal, and arises out of five consolidated applications made under the Excess Profits Tax Act covering the chargeable accounting periods ended 31st December, 1939, to 31st December, 1943. The point involved in them is the same.The dispute before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was whether the respondent company was or was not a director-controlled company within the meaning of Section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, during the chargeable accounting periods in question. The material portion of th...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lahoty Brothers Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal149,[1951]19ITR425(Cal)

Banerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-Tax Act & the question on which we are to express our opinion is as follows:'Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in allowing the sum of Rs. 2,100 as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv), Income-Tax Act;'The material portion of Section 10 is as follows:'(1) The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'profits & gains of business, profession or vocation' in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him.(2) Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely :(xv) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly & exclusively for the purposes of such business, profession or vocation'.2. The assessee is a private limited company consisting of four shareholders. It has its registered office at 161/1, Harrison Road, Calc...

Calcutta Electric Supply Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal151,55CWN261,[1951]19ITR406(Cal)

Harries, C.J.1 This is a Reference made at the instance of the assessees by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, in which the following question is framed for the opinion of the Ct.:'Whether the sum of Rs. 3,27,840/- received by the Appct. Co. from the Govt. of India in the circumstances of this case is taxable as profits Under Section 10(2) (vii), Income-tax Act?'2. The assessees are the well known Electric Supply Co. which provide this city with electricity. The assessees had a standby electricity generating plant at Bhatpara about sixteen miles from Calcutta. The plant was not in use, but it was kept as a standby or reserve in the event of the main generating plant breaking down.3. It appears that the Govt. during the War desired to acquire this plant, but the Co. did not want to sell. Eventually the Govt., on 10-4-1942 served a requisition order upon the assessees under the provisions of Rule 83, Defence of India Rules. A letter a...

Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. H. Hirjee.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1951]19ITR612(Cal)

HARRIES, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax in which the following question has been framed for the opinion of this Court :-'Whether in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,895 spent in defending the criminal proceedings was an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as contemplated by Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.'The assessee was the sole distributor of the products of Bengal Potteries. He was prosecuted by the Enforcement Authorities on a charge of selling the goods at prices higher than were reasonable. A part of his stock was seizes and taken away. He defended himself and eventually he was acquitted by a Magistrate. He spent a sum of Rs. 10,895 on his defence and he claimed that sum as an allowance in arriving at the taxab...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Steel Brothers and Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal162,56CWN241,[1951]19ITR435(Cal)

Banerjee, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66, Indian Income-tax Act made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta. The question on which we are to express our opinion has been formulated as follows:'Whether on the facts found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission payable to the assessee under the agreement with Attock Oil Co., was governed by Section 42 (3), Indian Income tax Act, for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee?'2. Section 42 (3) of the Act is as follows:'In the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in the taxable territories, the profits & gains of the business deemed under this section to accrue or arise in the taxable territories shall be only such profits & gains as are reasonably attributable to that part of the operations carried out in the taxable territories.'3. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant to this judgment may be shortly stated as follows....

Provash Chandra Roy Vs. Rabindra Nath Mondal Having Died, Sunil Kumar ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1951Cal393

ORDERK.C. Chunder, J.1. This rule was issued at the instance of a ticca tenant. The landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner as a tenant-at-will after service of notice to quit. The suit resulted in a decree for ejectment and an appeal was unsuccessful. The Ticca Tenancy Act having come into the Statute book in the meantime the tenant applied to the Munsif for rescinding the decree passed under Section 28, Ticca Tenancy Act. Whether the Munsif rightly rescinded the decree or not is not in question before us because the landlord never applied against the order rescinding the decree. The Munsif after rescinding the decree instead of following the provisions of Section 28 of the aforesaid Act, namely, keeping the case in his own file and allowing the landlord an opportunity to make good the defect, in the present case non-compliance with Section 8 of the Act, transferred the case to the Rent Controller. We have not been able to see under which provisions of the Act this was d...

Sm. Lilabati Rana Vs. Lalit Mohan Dey and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1952Cal499

R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for dissolution of a partnership of business and for adjustment of accounts.2. The plaintiff's case was that that two families the Pals and the Deys joined in a partnership business. Nafar Chandra Pal, the predecessor in interest of defendants Nos. 9 to 13, and the Deys who were four brothers, viz., Chandi, Lalit, Harimohan and Satis, entered into a partnership under the name and style of Pal and Sarkar for carrying on a business of money-lending and as gold and silversmiths. The plaintiff as one of the four members of the joint family is entitled to a two anna share in the said business. The plaintiff alleges that he did not receive any payment from the defendants since 1936, and that he did not want to continue as a partner. He further alleges that he had dissolved the partnership by a verbal notice on the 2nd May, 1943. As there had been no accounting between the parties, the plaintiff prayed t...