Kolkata Court March 1966 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.
Gopinath Gupta Vs. Post Master General and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal483,(1968)ILLJ230Cal
Sinha, C.J. 1. The facts in this appeal are shortly as follows:The appellant was born on the 1st July. 1901. In February, 1925 he entered service ofGovernment in the Post and Telegraph Department On the 1st July, 1956 while he was employed as an Accountant in the General Post Office, Calcutta, he completed 55 years of service. Thereafter, two charge-sheets were issued against him and increment was stopped. These stoppages of increment were the subject-matter of complaint in the Court below, but before us this point regarding stoppage of increment was not pressed. On or about the 28th December, 1958 the Post Master General wrote to the Presidency Post Master communicating the decision of the Director of Postal Services, Calcutta, that the appellant should not be retained on duty beyond the 30th June, 1959. On the 8th January, 1959 the Presidency Post Master communicated the said decision to the appellant. On the 15th April, 1959 the appellant appealed to the Post Master General, West Be...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Molasses Co. Pr. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal412,[1968]67ITR687(Cal)
Sen, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act.2. The following questions have been referred us for our opinion :--(1) Whether on the facts and in the circum-stances of the case the sum of Rs. 1,83,434/-was an expenditure effectively laid out or expended during the accounting year 1955 within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act?(2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether the said expenditure of Rs. 1,83.434/- represented a revenue expenditure?3. The Tribunal submitted a statement of the case under the aforesaid section and the facts are briefly stated as follows :--The assessee, the Indian Molasses Co. Pr. Ltd., Calcutta, is a private limited company. Its Managing Director Mr. J. B. R. Harvey, entered the service of the company in 1935. He was due to retire, had he lived, on September 20, 1955 on attaining the age of 55. He was a married man. When Mr. Harvey entered t...
In Re: P.C. Sen, Chief Minister of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal411,1966CriLJ883,70CWN579
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. In this Rule, P. C. Sen, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, stands charged with exhibition of contumacious conduct towards this Court, under circumstance hereinafter stated. 2. On November 18, 1965, the Governor of West Bengal made an order known as 'West Bengal Milk Products Control Order 1965', in exercise of the powers under Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules 1962. The declared object of the order was that in the opinion of the Governor it was necessary and expedient to regulate the manufacture of milk products (meaning thereby Chhana, Kheer and weets having as an ingredient Chhana or Kheer or both) and increase supplies of milk in the fluid form, a commodity essential to the life of the community. The Control Order was made applicable to Calcutta, areas comprised in certain specified municipalities and Chandernagore. Power was reserved to make the Control Order applicable to other areas by notification. In a sense, the Control O...
Jagannath Chetram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal540
A.N. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,308.48 p. or in the alternative an enquiry as to damages suffered by the plaintiff and a decree for the sum found due on such enquiry.2. The plaintiff alleges that on January 28, 1963 Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Private Ltd. delivered to the defendants' Western Railway Administration at Surat four cases of cotton piece goods, covered by invoice No. 94 to be safely and securely carried by Railway to Shalimar, a Railway station within the administration of South Eastern Railway and there to be delivered to the plaintiff as the consignee of the said goods. The further allegations are that the defendant duly issued a railway receipt bearing No. 53892 dated January 28, 1963 in respect thereof. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it is alleged that the railway receipt and the invoice were received by the plaintiff on or about February 15, 1963 from the Bank of Baroda upon payment of the value of the goods to the said...
Bijoy Kr. Sadhukhan Vs. Income-tax Officer Non Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal597
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. For the assessment years 1938-39, 1939-40, 1940-41, 1941-42. 1942-43 and 1943-44, the petitioner was assessed to income-tax by the respondent No. 2 Income-tax Officer, under the Income-tax Act, 1922, on the basis of returns filed by him. The demands made on the basis of such assessments were all paid by him.2. It now appears, however, that the petitioner had not made full and complete disclosure of his income for the several years mentioned above.3. On May 21, 1951, there was published, in the Statesman, a press note concerning a concessional scheme for speeding up collection of income-tax in arrears, coupled with the allurement that persons making voluntary or quasi voluntary disclosures of secreted income, before a prescribed date, would be allowed immunity from prosecution. A copy of the press note was forwarded to the Solicitor for the petitioner by Mr. S.K. Mondal, Central Government Solicitor. The press note reads as follows:'New Delhi, May 20--The Govern...
Pilani Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward, Com ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: [1968]69ITR847(Cal)
In the application the petitioner seeks appropriate writs and orders directing the respondents, their servants and agents to recall show-cause notice dated May 13, 1964, and to forbear from giving effect to the same.The petitioner is a public company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1056, its registered office being at Birlanagar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.The petitioner submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1955-56 and this income was duly assessed and an order was made on January 31, 1956, by the Income-tax Officer 'A' Ward, Jaipur. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer wrote several letters to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to meet him in connection with proceedings under section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner contended that it was a company in which the public was substantially interested, and for that reason section 23A was not attracted.On April 21, 1959, the Central Board of Revenue made an o...
Sambhu Nath Ghosal Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal577,1966CriLJ1248
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. The Petitioner says that he is a paddy cultivator, owns about 63 bighas of paddy land and the average produce from his land varies from 500 maunds to 450 maunds (186.62 Quintals to 168 Quintals) of paddy. He is the holder of a Large Producers' License, under the West Bengal Rice and Paddv Control Order, 1961.2. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order made by the respondent Additional District Magistrate calling upon him to sell a quantity of 109 Quintals of fine paddy, out of stock in his hands, to Messrs. Annapurna Rice Mill, at Kalna. The order reads as follows:'Whereas it is necessary to maintain supplies of fine paddy and to secure the availability thereof at statutory prices: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 ofthe Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (Act 10 of 1955), read with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India Order No. G.S.R. 34, dated the 6th January, 1959, I, the Ad...
Harnandrai Badridas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal383
Bay, J. 1. The question referred to this Court is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order refusing renewal of registration under Section 26A is legal and valid.'2. The case relates to the assessment year 1947-48.3. The assessee applied for renewal of registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In default of compliance with notice for production of books of accounts for the relevant assessment year, the assessee was assesed under Section 23(4) for the year in question. The Income-tax Officer thereafter refused to renew registration to the assessee, under Section 26A of Income-tax Act, saying that the account books for the year in question not having been produced, it was not possible for him to verify whether the profits had been distributed in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. The order of the Income-tax Officer was passed under Section 23(4)/26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.4. An appeal was preferred agains...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›