Kolkata Court June 1951 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.
Chainrup Sampatram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR484(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, J. - The question involved in this reference is almost a conundrum. It arises our of the following facts :The assessee Messrs. Chainrup Sampatram is a registered firm constituted of two partners, Sumermull and Budhmull, who are brother and hold equal shares. The firm is resident and ordinarily resident but the partners are non-residents, being residents of Bikaner. I should rather say that they were non-residents, in the year of account which was 1998 R. N. because to say at the present time that a person residing at Bikaner is non-resident will be inappropriate. The firm had its place of business at 9, Armenian Street, Calcutta, and carried on business as bullion dealers, dealing mainly in silver. The method of accounting followed by the firm is the mercantile method. For the accounting year 1998 R. N. the firm returned an income of Rs. 1,16,297 for income-tax purposes, of which Rs. 73,652 was shown as income from business. The same income was returned for excess profits...
Tulsi Charan Das Vs. Subal Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal9,56CWN39
Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Munsif allowing an application made under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The opposite parties in these proceedings were the tenants of certain properties and these properties were sold at the instance of the zamindari in a rent execution case and the holdings were purchased by the zamindar himself. Thereafter the zamindar held these lands in khas. The opposite parties then applied to a Debt Settlement Board under Section 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and that application culminated in an award under which the opposite parties received back their properties on April 10, 1949. It was alleged that since that date the opposite parties had been in possession of the properties.3. Afterwards another rent suit was instituted in respect of earlier rent and a decree was obtained and the property was put up for sale and purchased by an auction purchaser on October 26, 1949....
Kiran Chandra Dutta Roy and ors. Vs. Bijoy Chandra Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal123
ORDERRoxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of the District Judge of Burdwan passed under Section 40A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. I see not reason to interfere with his order.2. The main ground urged before me for interference is that the petitioner before the learned District Judge suppressed certain facts. As far as I can see, all the material facts alleged to have been suppressed are referred to in the judgment of the Appellate Officer, which was the subject-matter of the application for revision to the District Judge. The point at issue is whether the petitioner under Section 37A in a proceeding which has been going on for a number of years is now entitled to the benefit of the proposition laid down in the case of 'Monohardas v. Golam Rahaman' AIR (36) 1949 Cal 225. The contention before me is that the applicant under Section 37A is not the full owner of the properties sold and sought to be restored. The proposition in the case cited is that, on certain conditio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›