Kolkata Court May 1953 Judgments
Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta Vs. Bihar Spinning and Wea ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal221,[1953]23CompCas302(Cal),[1953]24ITR108(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Calcutta Bench of the Appellate Tribunal of the following question of law :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs. 6,000/- was permissible under Section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act.'2. The Reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal. Appearing for him, Mr. Meyer made it clear at the very outset that he was not concerned at all with the amount of deduction which had been allowed by the Tribunal, but his whole concern was to have certain erroneous principles upon which the Tribunal had proceeded corrected in order that the decision in the present case might not be utilised as a precedent in other similar cases.Likewise, the learned Advocate for the assessee said that to him also, the amount of Rs. 6,000/-was of no concern and that he wanted rather to defend the principles upon which the Tribunal had allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Bindheswari Singh Vs. K.K. Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal361,57CWN952
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a complainant who alleged that he had been cheated out of Rs. 5500/-. He gave evidence but the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused saying that although the evidence showed a different state of things the complainant was not allowed to give such evidence because of Section 92 Evidence Act. What happened was that at the time of this contract an offer was made which is Ex. 1 which, begins with saying: 'We have the pleasure in advising you that the undermentioned goods are available as per details given hereunder' and one of the details of the offer was 'Ex godown of principal as per availability.' It is definitely written there: 'All offers are subject to prior sale etc.' There can be no doubt on the part of any person reading the document that it contained an offer by the firm Valcan & Co. (Agency) to Messrs. B. S. Madhukar.The evidence that was sought to be given, and the learned Magistrate says himself that the oral e...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Trustee of West Bengal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, We ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1953
Reported in: [1954]26ITR410(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J. - This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Calcutta Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of three questions of law, arising out of the assessment of a part of the income of a trust fund. The assessment was made in the hands of the trustee who is the Official Trustee of West Bengal and it is at his instance that the reference has been made. His learned counsel stated before us that if he had been assessed at the appropriate rate applicable to the income, he would have submitted to the tax without question; but since the Department assessed him at the maximum rate, he thought he could retaliate by raising some fundamental questions which were open to him under the law. Accordingly, he raised three questions all of which have been referred.The facts are as follows. On 21st September, 1943, the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga conveyed certain shares and securities unto a trust for the benefit of his step-mother, Maharani Rameshwarlat...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Roy Vs. Surendra Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal733,57CWN627
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. An experiment in law-making with a view to establishing some control over the rents chargeable for premises let to tenants, primarily in Calcutta and other municipal areas, has been going on in this Province since 1943 and so far there have been five products of that experiment. As each of the successive pieces of legislation superseded its predecessor, there has on each occasion been some attempt to adjust the new law to the old or to extend some of the benefits of the new law to those against whom the old law had already been set in motion The question involved in the present reference concerns one such extension made of the Act of 1950. It arises in the following way.2. The' West Bengal Premises .Bent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act came into force on 1-12-1948 and remained in operation till 30-3-1950. Under Section 12(3) of that Act, a tenant who committed default in paying the rent accruing due from him after the commencement of the Act for three consecuti...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kisen Chamria and ors. Vs. Keshardeo Chamria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal105
Das, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order of Shri K. C. Sen, learned Subordinate Judge, 1st court, Howrah dated the 31st January, 1953. 2. The disputes between the parties spread over a long period and are varied. 3. For the purposes of this appeal the facts culminating in this appeal may be stated as follows. 4. The respondent No. 2, Durga Prosad Chamria purchased in execution of a decree the disputed property known as Rurmal Goenka's property for a sum of Rs. 8,61,000/-. Out of the purchase price Durga Prosad deposited on July 14, 1920 a sum of Rs. 2,15,250/- being one-fourth of the price and on August 20, 1920 a sum of Rs. 6,45,750/-, being the balance of the price. 5. It is the case of the appellants that in the same year, Durga Prosad agreed to sell the disputed property to the appellants for a sum of Rs. 8,61,000/- with interest at 6 3/4 p. c., p. a., from the aforesaid respective dates of payment of the said sum by Durga Prosad and costs incurred by the latter. 6. On J...
Tag this Judgment!Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal225,[1953]24ITR70(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This reference relates to a re-assessment under Section 34, Indian Income-tax Act and comprises two points taken by the assessee, one of which seeks to make out that the entire re-assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and the other of which seeks to make out that, in any event, the income brought to tax under the re-assessment was not taxable. The contention in the first case is that the Income-tax Officer had no 'definite information' on which he could legallyproceed under Section 34. In the second case, it is that the income concerned, is agricultural income.2. Before dealing with the reference on the merits, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary point. Section 66(1), Income-tax Act provides that the Commissioner or the assessee may, by an application made within a certain time, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of its order and further provides that 'the Appellate Tribunal shall, within ni...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn Vs. Naraindas Dhanuka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal31,57CWN715
ORDER1. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, and considering the materials on record and the circumstances of the case, it does not appear to us necessary to decide the broad or general question raised, namely, whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as a whole would apply to suits for ejectment in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. It is quite clear from the records that the petitioner's defence to the suit for ejectment was struck off under Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act as the whole defence was struck off, whether rightly or wrongly, at the date of hearing, there would have been no occasion for the petitioner to appear and he would not also have been entitled to appear at the said hearing. In such circumstances, the question of sufficient cause for non-appearance at the hearing was wholly immaterial and in any event, there could have been no sufficient cause, as contemplated by Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C., and, accordingly, no application under ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Mistri Vs. Madan Gopal Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal752,57CWN681
ORDER1. This Rule arises out of an application under Section 5(2), Calcutta Thika Tenancy Amendment Ordinance 15 of 1952. 2. The petitioner was the defendant in a suit for ejectment brought by the opposite parties on the allegation that the petitioner was a trespasser. That suit was decreed by the trial Court and the matter was pending in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge when the application under Section 5(2) of the Ordinance was filed before that Court. It is quite clear that under Section 5(2) referred to above the application contemplated therein has to be filed before 'the Court which passed the decree' to quote only the portion relevant for our present purpose. In the present case the decree for ejectment or recovery of possession had been passed by the trial Court and the matter was pending in appeal. But the appellate Court has not even now passed any decree. In these circumstances, in view of the express terms of Section 5(2), quoted above, no application un...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamapada Bhattacharjee Vs. Mohammad Dharam Buksh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal129
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. On this Chamber Summons the applicants want to be added as defendants to this suit and to be subrogated to the rights of defendant Mohammad Dharam Buksh under the decree, dated the 6th December, 1950, as amended by the order of the 15th February, 1952 in respect of premises No. 16, Toltola Lane, Calcutta.2. The plaintiff in this suit asked for a mortgage decree against the defendant in respect of the said premises No. 16, Toltola Lane, Calcutta. The mortgage is dated the 10th April, 1946 and there were also three deeds of charges, dated the 17th April, 1946, the 29th June, 1946 and the 24th February, 1947. A consent decree was made on 16-12-1950, but was at first in the form of a money decree only. Finally however after certain proceedings the decree of the 6th December, 1950 which was a decree for money, was amended by an order of the Court on the 14th February, 1952 into a mortgage decree for sale providing for six annual instalments, the first one being paya...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Ismail Doodha and ors. Vs. MomIn Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal386
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This Chamber Summons raises an important question on the nature and character of Receiver's lien and possession.2. The application is made by Mohammad Azim Mohammad Saleji a past Receiver of the estate of Ariff Bham deceased, for an order directing the present Receiver in this suit to pay him the sum of Rs. 11,4237- due to the applicant and also the costs under the orders dated 8-12-1947 and 22-4-1952 when taxed out of the said estate. The applicant also asks that the bond furnished by the applicant jointly with his sureties, the Bharat Fire and General Insurance Co., Ltd., do stand cancelled, & for the discharge of the sureties.3. On 5-7-1927 the applicant's father was appointed Receiver of the estate. He died in July 1943. By an order dated 31-8-1944, the applicant was appointed Receiver subject to his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar. He furnished security with Bharat Fire and General Insurance Co., Ltd., and the bond was signed on 2-8-194...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »