Kolkata Court February 1964 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Netherlands Steam Navigati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1964
Reported in: [1965]57ITR774(Cal)
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment years are 1952-53 to 1956-57, the corresponding accounting years being the calendar years 1951 to 1955. The assessee is the Netherlands Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. It is a non-resident company having business connections all over the world. It has a branch in Calcutta for its Indian business. It carried on business in the accounting years in question. It filed returns for each of the assessments concerned showing its taxable income computed on the basis of its annual accounts for its Indian trade, that is, for round voyages round the world but no particulars of the shipping trade were furnished.The Income-tax Officer computed the taxable business income for each year by employing the following formula :Indian trade profits xIndian port receiptsTotal port receipts.By Indian trade profits is meant the profits of round voyages in which Indian ports were touched by the vessels....
Rabi Narayan Upadhyaya Vs. Kanak Prova Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal444
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. The only point of law in this Second Appeal is how tar a father as the natural guardian of a Hindu minor son has power to sell the minor's estate for the benefit of the estate. 2. The point of law arises on the following facts: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of khas possession of the lands in suit and declaration or her title thereto in respect of 10 bighas of land in Taluk Debgram in the district of Jalpaiguri. She filed the suit on the strength of her title by purchase on the basis of a registered deed of sale dated 21st Febuary, 1945 executed by Mahipal Singh Roy, the natural guardian and father of minor Birendra Kanta Roy who was the owner of the lands in suit. The plaintiffs case is that she was in possession since the purchase but was dispossessed by the defendant appellant on or about the middle of Baisakh 1360 B.S. which will be about 10 years ago, i.e., about April 1933. She then instituted the suit on the 7th April, 1956. 3. The defence is that th...
industrial Gases Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR317(Cal)
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 The assessment year is 1951-52 The accounting period is the calendar year 1950. From the statement of the case it appears that the assessee is a private limited company incorporated on the 25th July, 1947, with the object, inter alia, of carrying on the business of manufacturing industrial gases. Pending the installation of the factory the assessee up to the preceding assessment year was having dealings only in carbide, machinery parts and other industrial gases.During the accounting period the installation of the factory had been completed, and the assessee started the manufacture of industrial gases. The activities of the assessee with regard to the manufacturing business and commercial dealings were found to be carried on as two completely separate units for which separate sets of accounts books were also maintained. The result of the manufacturing unit was a loss and there was substa...
Doongarshi Das Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal215,1965CriLJ426
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J.1. This Rule is directed against the summons that has been issued by the learned Magistrate in a case involving an alleged offence under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also certain other orders in a proceeding which has remained pending in that Court. Upon a 'prosecution report the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act against two persons. The summons that was issued by the learned Magistrate in the Form No. 1 Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure read in the material part, 'You are hereby required to appear in person by pleader'. Both the alternatives, that is appearance in person or, appearance by pleader, were allowed to remain without any one of them being scored out, and that summons was issued under the' signature of the learned Magistrate. 2. On the very next date, that is on 9th May, 1960 when the accused were absent, the learned Magistrate directed issue of warrants of arrest a...
Mannalal Ratanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR84(Cal)
SHANKAR PRASAD MITRA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1952-53. The corresponding accounting year is 2007-8 Dewali. The assessee is a partner in the registered firm of Messrs. Sadhuram Tolaram. From this firm the assessee derived one-third of the income in each of the three heads, namely, property, business and other sources. In the year of account relevant to the said assessment year, the assessee borrowed a certain sum of money for the purpose of paying income-tax in respect of assessments for preceding years. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 1,934 (Rupees one thousand and nine hundred and thirty-four) as interest on this borrowing.The Income-tax Officer refused to allow deduction of this sum of interest from the total income of the assessee. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee contended that if he had not borrowed money, he would have been compelled to liquidate part of his income yielding asset...
Gour Chandra Garai Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal363,1965CriLJ84
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J.1. In this case upon an application for Revision of an order of conviction and sentence of fine imposed upon the petitioner, a Rule was issued to show cause why that order of the learned Presidency Magistrate should not be set aside and by the same order the accused petitioner also wasdirected to show cause why the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Magistrate should not be enhanced, if his conviction is upheld. By the effect of that Enhancement Rule, under Sub-section (6) of Section 439 Cr. P. C. (petitioner?) has been entitled to show cause against his conviction. At the hearing of this case the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Dutt has exercised that right and has argued the case on all aspects, both of fact and of law with commendable ability and acumen.2. Facts that have given rise to this case is a simple story that on November 13, 1962 at 6 P. M. this Petitioner was driving State Bus No. W. B. S. 981 along Upper Circular Road (now named Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›