Kolkata Court May 1953 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. Diana Engineering Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal575,[1953]24ITR613(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act by the Calcutta Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under a direction of this Court of the following question of law:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case any appeal lay to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act from an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 30(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act declining to admit a time-barred appeal.'2. In the statement of the case submitted the Tribunal has said that at the time the appeal was being argued before it, the point that no appeal lay was not taken on behalf of the Department at all. It appears from a reference to the appellate order passed at the time that it contains no reference to any contention that the appeal was incompetent. The present reference, however, was made because this Court directed the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 66(2) of the Act and, therefo...
In Re: Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, Central, Calcutta Vs. Bhartia Ele ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal526,[1954]25ITR192(Cal)
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act, read with Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, of a short question of law to which the thirdproviso to Rule 5A of Schedule I to the former Act has given rise. The question reads as follows: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, of this case, the amount of pronts of the standard period as fixed by the central Board of Revenue under Section 26(1), Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, requires to be increased under the third, proviso to Rule 5A of Schedule I of the said Act by the amount of interest apportionabie to the standard period on deferred snare capital, later on treateu as borrowings even though such interest had not been charged to the profit and loss-account in the standard period.'2. The facts are simple. The assessee is a limited company and it appears that in 1937 it issued 1,45,000 deferred shares and obtained some money from those who took them up. Subsequently, the validity of the issue of th...
Panchu Gopal Ghose Vs. Jogen Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Cal594,57CWN565
ORDERChunder, J.1. The facts in this case as far as necessary for our present purpose can be summarised within a very short compass. The petitioner brought a criminal case against the opposite party. The learned Magistrate held that the case was frivolous and vexatious. He does not exactly say false. He called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation under Section 250, Criminal P. C. The complainant it appears was absent and he filed an application wanting time on two grounds, namely, that as the judgment was a long one covering several pages he must have a copy to find out on what ground his case has been held to be frivolous and vexatious and what material there was in the judgment to give rise to an inference, not explicitly drawn, that the case was false. The second reason was that as he was ill he could not do all this immediately. The learned Magistrate has nowhere said that either of the two reasons was not acceptable or was not a good r...
Bhutnath Mukherjee Vs. Bhupati Lall Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Cal76
ORDERRenupada Mukherjee, J.1. These two rules were issued at the instance of one Bhutnath Mukherjee who is landlord of opposite party Bhupatilal Karmakar in respect of two rooms forming part of premises No. 63, Pathuria-ghata Street, Calcutta. One of these rooms is a shop room, the contractual rent whereof was Rs. 16/- per mensem and the other room is used for residential purposes, and its contractual rent was fixed at Rs. 14/- per mensem. The tenant opposite party filed two applications before the Rent Controller for standardisation of the rent of these two premises. The application filed in respect of the shop room was numbered as Case No. 1576 (C) of 1950 and the application in respect of the residential room was registered as Case No. 1577 (C) of 1950.The Rent Controller standardised the rent of the shop-room at Rs. 8/4 per month and the rent of the residential room at Rs. 6/0/9p, per month. Both the cases were governed by one judgment. Two appeals were preferred against the decisi...
Province of Bengal Vs. Probash Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Cal400
G.N. Das, J. 1. These appeals are at the instance of the plaintiff and arise out of suits for recovery of rent. 2. The plaintiff claims rent on the strength of a purchase in execution of a certificate obtained by the plaintiff against one Anupama Dassi. The plaintiff's' allegation is that by this purchase, the landlord's interest which was vested in Anupama Dassi passed to the plaintiff, Anupama's right to the reversion was derived in the following manner: The disputed lands appertain to three tonzies one of which was numbered as Touzi No. 3241. This touzi comprised 3 annas, 6 gandas, 2 karas, and 2 krantis share of the parent touzi 1484. Under this touzi, the pro forma defendants Nos. 2 to 11 were tenure-holders. As the tenure-holders did not pay rent, the proprietors of touzi No. 3241 viz., Puma Chandra Ghose and others instituted a suit for rent against the tenure-holders impleading the co-sharer landlords and obtained a decree for rent. This decree was executed in Rent Execution Ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›