Kolkata Court November 1964 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta Vs. Union Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1964
Reported in: [1966]59ITR483(Cal)
MITTER J. - The question referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in applying the provisions of section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act to the assessee-company for the assessment year 1952-53 ?'The facts are as follows : For the relevant assessment year 1952-53, the corresponding previous year of the assessee was the one ending on March 30, 1952. The company showed in its return a total income of Rs. 1,49,935. At a general meeting of the shareholders held on May 27, 1953, dividends totaling Rs. 62,500 were declared. At first the company was assessed at an income of Rs. 2,79,635. The Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 23A(1) declaring that a further sum of Rs. 96,668 out of the undistributed profits shall be deemed to have been declared as dividends and proportionate share thereof attributable to each shareholder shall be included in his total income. ...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Supplies and Disposals Vs. Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC197(Cal)
G.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 21(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The question referred to this Court is:Whether the Director of Supplies and Disposals, United States Transfer Directorate, having his office situated at No. 6, Esplanade East, Calcutta, carries on the business of selling goods in West Bengal and is, therefore, a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941? 2. The facts of this case are as follows: The Directorate of Disposals (United States Transfer Directorate) was an organisation of the Government of India. The said Directorate with various branches under its control were responsible for the disposal of surplus American war equipment which had been taken over by the Government of India. When the said equipment was substantially disposed of the work of the said Directorate dwindled and had merged with that of the Regional Commissioner (Disposals) on nth January, 1950. Later the Supply and ...
Tag this Judgment!B. W. Nobes and Co. Ltd. Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR63(Cal)
HARMAN L.J. - I am authorised by Salmon L.J. to say that he concurs in the judgment I am about to deliver.This appeal is concerned with those annual payments which are dealt with by sections 169 and 170 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, re-enacting the old general rules 19 and 21. Section 169 provides that where any annual payment is payable wholly out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax the payer is to be charged with the tax and may, on making the payment, deduct and retain a sum representing the amount of the tax at the standard rate for the year in which the amount payable became due. The payee is bound to suffer this and the payer is discharged of the sum represented by the deduction as if he had actually made it.Under section 170 where any such annual payment is not payable out of profits or gains brought into charge the payer must, on making the payment, deduct the amount of the tax and account for it to the Crown. The question here is whether the taxpayer company, whom I ...
Tag this Judgment!Paban Chandra Majumdar Vs. Dulal Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal387,1965CriLJ90
ORDERK.C. Sen, J. 1. This Rule is directed against the order of the learned Magistrate at Ranaghat dated 15th February, 1963 whereby he acquitted the accused persons charged under Section 324, Indian Penal Coderead with Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, under Section 251A(XI) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What happened is that the present petitioner who is the complainant lodged a first information report with the police station Nrisinhapur on the 5th July, 1962 on the allegation that Basudeb had assaulted him and Dulal inflicted a blow on his chin with a hesua causing bleeding injuries. After investigation the police submitted challan and the trial commenced before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Kishore Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Magistrate passed the order of acquittal without taking any steps for procuring the attendance of the witnesses on whom the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons. His contention is t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Cal68
Mitter, J. 1. The question in this case is whether wealth tax paid by a company on assets held by it for the purpose of its business is allowable as a deduction under Section 10 (1) or Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The contention of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer was that in order to carry on its business the company had to possess wealth in the form of various assets and therefore, the payment of tax levied on such wealth was incidental to the business and allowable as a deduction in computing its profits. The Income-tax Officer held that although wealth tax was a charge on the assets of the company including business as well as non-business assets, a person owing assets has to pay tax not because he carries on business but because of his ownership of the assets and hence wealth tax levied would not be said to be expended wholly and exclusively for business purposes. This was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Zeenutinnessa Begum Vs. Nawab Syed Waris Ali Meerza Saheb Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal473
Sinha, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order, of Ray, J. dated the 6tb March. 1964 whereby he dismissed an application made by the appellant for execution of a decree obtained by her against the respondent, dated 6th December. 1932. The facts are briefly as follows; Suit No. 1599 of 1932 (Zeenutennessa Begum v. Nawab Syed Waris Ali Meerza Saheb Bahadur) was instituted in 1932 for realisation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, being the deferred dower claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant, with interest and costs. On the 6th December, 1932 a decree was passed in the said suit in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- with interest thereon at 6 p.c. per annum and costs. It is in execution of this decree that an application was made by the Appellant for execution by tabular statement on the 26th November 1968 and notice was issued to the respondent on 3rd December, 1963. A copy of the tabular statement appears atpages 1 to 7 of the Paper Book. In column 6 it has been mentioned tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax(Central), Calcutta Vs. Standard Vacuum Oil ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1964
Reported in: [1965]57ITR384(Cal)
MITTER J. - The question in this case is whether wealth-tax paid by a company on assets held by it for the purpose of its business is allowable as a deduction under section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.The contention of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer was that in order to carry on the business the company had to possesses wealth in the form of various assets and therefore the payment of tax levied on such wealth was incidental to the business and allowable as a deduction in computing its profits. The Income-tax Officer held that although wealth-tax was a charge on the assets of the company including business as well as non-business assets a person owning assets has to pay tax not because all carries on business but because of his ownership of the assets and hence wealth-tax levied would not be said to be expended wholly and exclusively for business purposes. This was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal howev...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Samad Bepari Vs. Manasha Charan Bakshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal1,67CWN977
ORDERK.C. Sen, J.1. This Section is directed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, dated 15th March, 1963. the petitioner Abdul Samad Bepari has prayed for quashing proceedings pending against him under Section 417, Indian Penal Code. It will appear that under the order of the learned Magistrate process has been ordered to be issued upon him under the aforesaid section. The facts out of which this case arises was that on the 3rd June, 1960 the complainant opposite party Manasha Charan Bakshi filed a petition before the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate against the accused petitioner alleging that the latter on certain false representations, induced the com-plainant opposite party to copy out, sign and deliver to the petitioner a letter which was drafted personally by the petitioner and that the complainant opposite party also alleged the t the petitioner was trying to utilise the said letter for interfering with the lights ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Sukhraji Bhuj Vs. Calcutta State Transport Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Cal620
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This is a suit raised on August 22, 1953, by Sukhraji Bhuj or Bhunj (hereafter referred to, so far as possible, as Sukhraji) claiming Rs. 10,000 from the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, the sole defendant, for the pecuniary loss sustained by her for the death of her 14 year old son, Ramdeo, on his having been knocked down on June 23, 1952, at 2-30 p.m. or thereabouts along the eastern side of Government Place East by a motor omnibus WBS 345 of the defendant Corporation driven negligently.2. A suit as this is resisted on the plea that the deceased Ramdeo jumped off a running tram-car, proceeding north to south, came in contact with the right rear wheel of the omnibus, also going north to south parallel to the tram-car, and thereby sustained the fatal injuries caused entirely by his own negligence. More, the point where he jumped so a little south of the junction of Waterloo street and Government Place East had no tram-stop. Nor did he care to look to the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Sen and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal282
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 state that they are original inhabitants of the villages Senpara and Deuniapara respectively, which are within Berubari Union No. 12 in Thana Jalpaiguri, District of Jalpaiguri, within the State of West Bengal. The petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 state that they were originally inhabitants of villages situate in Thana Boda, adjoining Thana Jalpaiguri. When a portion of Thana Boda was included in Pakistan, they came over and settled in villages Senpara and Gonranga-bazar respectively, which are situated within the said Berubari Union No. 12. It is admitted by the respondents that the villages Senpara, Deuniapara and Gouranga Bazar are situated within Berubari Union No. 12. It is however contended that the whole of Thana Boda consisting of the Police Thanas Boda, Pachagarh and Debiganj became part of Pakistan under the Radcliff Award. The petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 state that they are original inhabitants of the village Chilahati, of the localiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »