Kolkata Court February 1965 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.
Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, We ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR334(Cal)
G. K. MITTER, J. - The questions referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company is one in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of the Explanation to sub-section (9) of section 23A of the Income-tax Act as it stood at the relevant tim ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 23A as amended in 1955 violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and, as such, ultra vires the Constitution.'The facts appearing in the statement of the case are as follows :The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods. Out of a total number of shares issued by the company, 3,22,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each were fully paid up and the balance of 26,580 shares of Rs. 10 each was paid up to the extent of Re. 1 per share only. The shareholding of the man...
In Re: Osler Electric Lamp Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1965
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas306(Cal),69CWN628
S.K. Datta, J. 1. This application for leave to sue the official liquidator arises in the circumstances mentioned hereinafter. 2. The applicants Nos. 6 to 9 and one Vakchand Hingarani, since deceased, were the owners of the building known as Hingarani House and being premises No. 78, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Bombay-18. On February 25, 1953, the said owners of the premises leased out flat No. 11 to Messrs. Osier Electric Lamp Manufacturing Company for a period of three years from November 1, 1952, at a monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month. 3. Thereafter, according to the applicants, ' on the expiry of the said term, the said M/s. Osier Electric Lamp . had become a monthly tenant in respect of the said portion of the said premises.' 4. On the 4th day of January, 1964, the said Vakchand Hingarani died, leaving his widow and sons and daughters, applicants Nos. 1 to 5. 5. On the 2nd day of December, 1958, the Osier Electric Lamp Manufacturing Company was directed to be wound up and the of...
Superintendent Now Designated as the General Manager, Metal and Steel ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal252,(1967)ILLJ317Cal
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an Order of Banerjee J. making a Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution absolute and quashing the order of termination of service of the respondent. 2. The respondent is a civilian employee of the Ministry of Defence and was first employ ed about twenty-two years back in the Ordinance Section as a permanent labourer in Metal & Steel Factory, Ichapur It is alleged that on or about the 24th February 1960 while working in the course of his employment he received injury on his chest, two hands and shoulders as a result of an accident by fall of a scrap iron and he was immediately shifted to the Military Hospital at Alipur but he was discharged from the said hospital on the 6th March 1960 There after he reported for duty but was not allow ed to resume his duties and was kept under observation of the local hospital of the Metal & Steel Factory for three weeks. Upon the expiry of three weeks he again reported for duty but was not allowed to resume his d...
Sm. Parul Lata Chakravarty Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC116(Cal)
D. Basu, J.1. The petitioner in the two cases Nos. C.R. 617 and 618(W) of 1962 carries on business of importing snuff for sale in West Bengal which is maunfactured by manufacturers outside this State who have to pay duties of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. Notwithstanding this the petitioner has been assessed with sales tax in the two cases respectively under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on her sale of snuff during the four quarters ending Chaitra, 1356 B.S. The petitioner's case is that no sales tax is payable on the sale of snuff under either of these two Acts inasmuch as snuff comes within the definition of tobacco as denned in item 9 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Though the enactments under which the assessment has been made in the two cases are different, the question for determination is ultimately the same, namely, whether snuff is include...
Shree Gopal Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1965
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas240(Cal),[1967]64ITR233(Cal)
Datta, J.1. This reference relates to the application of the provisions for rebate contained in Paragraph D of Part II of the Finance Act, 1956.`2. On 30th December, 1954, the assessee-company passed several resolutions relating to the capital structure of the company including a resolution relating to the issue of fully paid-up bonus shares.3. The assessee-company in its return for the assessment year 1956-57 corresponding to the accounting year 1955 claimed a rebate onaccount of the issue of bonus shares and the increase in the paid-up capitalconsequent upon the issue of bonus shares. The Income-tax Officer heldthat the rebate on the face value of the bonus shares is to be reduced inthe year when these shares are issued by the company to its shareholders. In the accounting year 1955 only a resolution for increase of capital by issue of new shares was passed. The passing of the resolution in the accounting yeardid not tantamount to the issue of bonus shares to the shareholders. Hefurt...
B.K. Gooyee Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal438
Datta, J.1. The facts of this Reference lie in a very narrow compass.2. On the 6th flay of March 1951 a notice by registered post was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 34 of the Income-Tax Act on the ground that certain incomes had escaped assessment. The said notice was served on the lawyer for the assessee. On receipt of the said notice by the lawyer, the assessee filed his Return, and thereafter an assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer upon the basis of the said notice under Section 34. Thereafter, the assessee being dissatisfied with the order, took the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner where for the first time the assessee took the point that the notice under Section 34 was bad in law inasmuch as it did not bear the signature of the Income-tax Officer, for a proper notice under Section 34 is a condition precedent in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer3. It transpired before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the Income-ta...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamal Singh Rampuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal454
Datta, J 1. This is an application by theassessee Hulas Chand Rampuria for a certificate that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. This application raises a question relating to the application of Section 34(1)(a) in the facts of this case.3. The facts of this case may be summarised shortly as follows:--Hulas Chand Rampuria made a gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- to his wife. She died in 1935 after giving birth to a son, a week earlier. The son was named Kamal Singh Rampuria, she had a share in the firm of Messrs. Bikanir Trading Co. which admittedly devolved on her son Kamal Singh Rampuria upon her death. This share or interest in the firm also yielded income. In the several years from 1936 till 1944-45 the said Hulas Chand Rampuria, the natural guardian of the assessee showed the income from the firm of Bikanir Trading Co. in the returns made on his behalf.4. She, wife of the said Hulas Chand Rampuria executed a will whereby she bequested the said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-., Rs. 1...
Shree Gopal Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal560
Datta, J.1. This reference relates to the application of the provisions for rebates contained in paragraph D of Part II of the Finance Act. 1956.2. On December 30, 1954, the assessee company passed several resolutions relating to the capital structure of the company including a resolution relating to the issue of fully paid up bonus shares.3. The assessee company in its return for the assessment year 1966-57 corresponding to the accounting year 1955 claimed a rebate on account of the issue of bonus shares and the increase in the paid-up capital consequent upon the issue of bonus shares. The Income-tax Officer held that the rebate on the face value of the bonus shares is to be reduced in the year when these shares are issued by the company to its shareholders. In the accounting year 1955 only a resolution for increase of capital by issue of new shares was passed. The passing of the resolution in the accounting year did not tantamount to the issue of bonus shares to the shareholders He f...
B. K. Gooyee Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR109(Cal)
DATTA, J. - The facts of this reference lie in a very narrow compass.On the 6th day of March, 1951, a notice by registered post was issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, on the ground that certain incomes had escaped assessment. The said notice was served on the lawyer of the assessee. On receipt of the said notice by the lawyer, the assessee filed his return, and thereafter an assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer upon the basis of the said notice under section 34. Thereafter, the assessee being dissatisfied with the order, took the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, where, for the first time, the assessee took the point that the notice under section 34 was bad in law inasmuch as it did not bear the signature of the Income-tax Officer, for a proper notice under section 34 is a condition precedent in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer.It transpired before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the Income-tax...
Rajasthan Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Cal535,69CWN423,[1965]57ITR194(Cal)
Masud, J. 1. This reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act 1922 relates to the assessment year 1954-55, the corresponding previous year of which ended on the 30th June 1953. The facts are briefly stated as follows:2. The assessee was a Private Limited Co. prior to October 1949 when it was converted into a public Limited Co. The private company had been incorporated on 6th November 1942 with a fully paid share capital of Rs. 10 lacs divided into 10,000 shares of Rs. 100/- each and the shares were held by Shri Dayaram Poddar and the members of his family and, in particular, Shri Dayaram Poddar and his two sons, who were also the Directors of the private company, held 6365 shares, i.e., more than 63 per cent of the total share holding. Remuneration of the Directors was provided for in the Art. 16 of the Articles of Association of the Private Company at the rate of Rs. 16/- at every meeting in addition to travelling allowance etc. as might be decided upon. The conversion of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›