Kolkata Court December 1963 Judgments
Premsukhdas Sitaram Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal391,1964CriLJ285,68CWN516
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J.1. This Revisional application is directed against the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta dated the 10th June 1963 by which he has directed that Income Tax authorities be given custody of certain documents of the petitioner which were seized by execution of Search Warrants issued by him in July 1961 under Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Facts relevant for the purpose of this Rule are that on 6th July, 1961 Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service Calcutta made an 'application for issue of search warrants for seizure of certain goods and documents connected with alleged illegal importation into India prohibited, restricted and dutiable goods by infringements of provisions of Sea Customs Act, Export and Import (Control) Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. By that application dated the 6th July 1961 three premises were prayed to be searched and by other applications dated the 7th July 1961 and 11th July 1961...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Ghose Vs. Deputy Controller, Reserve Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal422,68CWN914
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner S. P. Ghosh was born at Diamond Harbour in India on the 1st February, 1930. In or about October, 1950 be went to the UnitedKingdom for his education. In August, 1980 ha applied for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and the application being accepted he became a citizen of the United Kingdom on and from the 26th September, 1980. He has married in England. In or about September, 1960 the petitioner entered into a contract of service with Messrs. Wacneil Barry Ltd., for three years, renewable for subsequent term or terms. Under the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the petitioner is required to stay in India as long as the contract subsists. The petitioner came to India in February, 1981 and joined his post at Calcutta. Sometime in August, 1980 the petitioner's wife Mrs. Margarett Ghosh had written to the Reserve Bank of India, Exchange Control Department, Central Office, Bombay, as...
Tag this Judgment!Amiya Gopal Hazra and ors. Vs. 2nd Land Requisition Collector and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal587
ORDERA.K. Mukherjea, J.1. In this application the legality of certain land acquisition proceeding started by the State of West Bengal has been challenged. The short facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioners are joint owners of a piece of land within the municipal area of Calcutta. This land comprises premises Nos. 1 and 3 Kulia Tangra Third Lane and premises Nos. 6-A, 6-B, 6-C and 7 Kulia Tangra 4th Lane. The petitioners allege that about 11 or 12 years back, they or their predecessore-in-interest settled three out of the said plots of land namely, premises Nos. 6-A, 6-B and- 6-C, Kulia Tangra 4th Lane with various monthly tenants and gave the said tenants the right to build their own structures on their respective plots of land. Several un lateral kabuliats were executed by these tenants in favour of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. Premises No. 7, Kulia Tangra 4th Lane and 6. Kulia Tangra 3rd Lane had been settled about 20 years back with certain other tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivas Banking Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: [1965]58ITR89(Cal)
SANKAR PROSAD MITRA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee has been held to be a company in which the public were not substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A of the Act. The assessment year is 1950-51 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1950. The point in dispute was whether in view of the loss incurred by the company in the earlier year or the smallness of the profit made during the accounting year, the payment of a dividend would be unreasonable.The profit disclosed in the accounts of the assessee in the year ending on March 31, 1950, was Rs. 11,190. A loss was disclosed in the accounting year ending on the 31st March, 1948, Rs. 15,470. But the profit and loss account as at the 31st March, 1948, disclosed the net surplus of Rs. 25,731 and thus the net surplus in the profit and loss account as at the 31st March, 1949, was Rs. 10,261. On the 31st March, 1950, according to the balance-sheet, t...
Tag this Judgment!Nathuni Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal279
Mitter, J. 1. This is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution of India for determination of several constitutional questions raised in paragraph 10 of the petition.2. The petitioners are 158 in number against whom proceedings were started under Rule 41(5) read with Rule 41(1)(a), Rule 35(3) and Rule 36(4) of the Defence of IndiaRules, 1962. They were all workmen of Shri Luxmi Flour Mills Ltd., 243, Upper Chitpore Road, Calcutta. The complaint against them was that they had squatted outside the main gate and rear entrance of the said Mill in order to prevent anybody from going in or coming out of the said Mill premises and had refused to allow others to lift 27,000 mds. of finished wheat products for despatch by trucks and rail with the result that there was every chance of the said stock getting rotten. The complaint was taken up by a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta who overruled the preliminary objections raised before him on behalf of the present petitioners.3. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Manisha Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Cal459,68CWN189
Banerjee, J.1. Against an appellate decree by the Additional District Judge, Fourth Court, at Alipore, District 24 Parganas, the petitioner, State of West Bengal, filed a Second Appeal to this Court, on November 17, 1958. The sole respondent in the appeal was one S. K. Maity alias Sachindra Kumar Maity, who was, as it now transpires, dead at the filing of the appeal. The appeal was admitted by this Court, on September 24, 1959, under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A process server, who went to serve the notice of the appeal on the respondent, found out that the respondent had the sometime ago and returned the notice unserved with a report to the above effect Thereafter, on May 19, 1960, the case was placed before the Registrar of the Appellate Side of this Court, taking Lawazimah matters, for further action on the report of the process server. It is alleged, that the Advocate for the appellant State came to know, for the first on that date that the sole respondent wa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1963
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas365(Cal),[1966]60ITR384(Cal)
S.P. Mitra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1956-57. The relevant accounting year is the calendar year ending on the 31st December, 1955. The assessee-company's total income was computed at Rs. 6,14,525 (Rupees six lakhs fourteen thousand five hundred and twenty-five). In computing the tax on this total income in accordance with the Finance Act, 1956, the Income-tax Officer calculated the reduction in rebate in the following manner:Rs. RebateRs.Total dividend and bonus declared during the year (The bonus declared is also to be included in the dividend as it is not bonus declared with a view to increasing the capital)...5,49,000 6 per cent, of the ordinary share capital...1,83,000 3,66,000 Nil4 per cent, of the ordinary share capital...1,22,000@ 2 as.15,250 2,44,000@ 3 as.45,750 61,0002. The Income-tax Officer based his calculation on the paid up share capital at Rs. 30,50,000 (Rupees thirty lakhs and fifty thousand...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Chandra Ray and ors. Vs. Khandu Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Cal562,68CWN333
D. Basu, J.1. N.K. Sen, J., sitting singly, referred this Second Appeal to the Division Bench for disposal since, in his Lordship's opinion, there was a conflict of authorities upon the only question of law which called for his determination in this appeal.2. The second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents, who are minors, for a declaration that the ex parte decree for rent obtained by the appellants against them and their co-sharers, in R. S. No. 2006 of 1944, was not binding upon the respondents inasmuch as the respondents were, in that suit, impleaded as represented not by their mother who was their natural guardian, but by their brother, Gobinda alias Gobardhan, who was defendant No. 12 in the suit. It is now established by the findings of the Courts below that there was no adverse interest of defendant No. 12 against the minor defendants, though he did not contest the suit and also that the decree was not tainted by any fraud on the part of the appellants or of d...
Tag this Judgment!Agarwal Trading Corporation and ors. Vs. Asst. Collector of Customs an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal347,1964CriLJ151
Miter, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order discharging a Rule obtained by the appellants calling upon the respondents, the Collector of Customs and others to show cause why certain orders passed under various sections of the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act should not be quashed and why a written complaint made by the respondents, the Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and case No. 876 of 1959 pending to the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, should not be stayed.2. The appellants are Agarwal Trading Corporation, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act carrying on business at No. 191, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta and its partners Girdharilal Gupta and Puranmal Jain. The respondents are (i) the Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service (2) and Additional Collector of Customs (3) Collector of Customs and (4) the Union of India. 3. The ca...
Tag this Judgment!Fuel Supply Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Cal28,[1965]58ITR130(Cal)
K.C. Sen, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 hereinafter described as the Act. The following question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion:'Can an appeal under Section 30 of the Indian Income Tax Act against the claim of the best judgment assessment also combine an appeal against the refusal of registration when the assessment and the refusal are made in the same order under Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act?'The assessee Messrs. Fuel Supply Company is a partnership firm carrying on a business in colliery materials tools and other things. The assessment year in question is 1956-57 and the corresponding accounting year is the Diwali year 2011/12. This partnership firm was registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act ever since the assessment year 1946-47. A notice under Section 22(2) of the Act was served on the assessee on the 26th July 1956. There was no compliance with the notice by the assessee till the 16th September 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »