Kolkata Court December 1967 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, W.B. Ii Vs. Chrestian Mining Co. Ltd., Thr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal359
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This Income-tax Reference raises the following question for an answer:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 5 lacs was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee?'2. The facts are simple and short. The assessee was the lessee of mica mining rights over a certain area of Mahal Mahassi. It had also a lease of 16 annas surface rights in the said Mahal. There were two leases. One was in respect of the mining rights, the other was in respect of surface rights. They were both obtained on the 25th April, 1942. On 12th December, 1942, the mining rights in the said Mahal were requisitioned by the Government of India. Thereafter, on the 4th December 1943, the Government acquired 4722 acres thereof. The requisition in respect of the mining rights over area other than the said area of 4722 acres was withdrawn on the 30th October, 1945. 3 parties were interested in the claims for compensation for the acquisition. They...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Ii Vs. Chrestian Mining Co. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR371(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - This Income-tax reference raises the following question for an answer :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee ?'The facts are simple and short. The assessee was the lease of mica mining right over a certain area of Mahal Mahasri. It had also a lease of 16 annas surface rights in the said Mahal. There were two leases. One was in respect of the mining rights, the other was in respect of surface rights. They were both obtained on the 25 the April, 1942. On 12th December, 1942, the mining rights in the said Mahal were requisitioned by the Government of India. Thereafter, on the 4th December, 1943, the Government acquired 4,722 acres thereof. The requisition in respect of the mining rights over area other than the said area of 4,722 acres was withdrawn on the 30th October, 1945. Three parties were interested in the claims for compensation for the acquisiti...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Bhagat Singh Akali Vs. Lachman Singh Akali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal296,1968CriLJ759,73CWN1
T.P. Mukherji, J.1. The complainant in a case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the present respondent and one Giani Bichittar Singh filed this appeal with the special leave of the Court under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the respondent in that case The respondent was the owner of a journal in Gurmukhi language named Nabi Probhat while the co-accused in the case Giani Bichittar Singh was the editor, printer and publishei thereof. In two issues of that journal dated October 1 and October 6 1964 respectively the journal published two editorials containing defamatory statements about the complainant whichformed the basis of the charge framed against both the accused persons.2. The defence of the present respondent, as it-appears from his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that the editorial was written by the editor and that he had no guilt in the matter. He alleged that he had been impleaded in...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prosad More Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Ii.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: [1969]71ITR33(Cal)
A. C. SEN J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instant of the assessee. The question that has been referred to us for our opinion is as follows :The fact may briefly be stated thus : In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the income of the house property consisting of premises Nos. 46A and 46B, Wellesley Street, Calcutta, should be treated as income derived from trust property and hence should be taxed not in his hands as his individual income but as income derived by him as trustee from trust property. It appears that the assessee filed two returns - one in his own name, viz., Shri Durga Prosad More in the capacity of trustee to the estate of Sm. Benarasi Debi declaring total income at Rs. 34,380. It was stated by the representative of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer that the said house property should not be taxed in the han...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Sadhukhan and ors. Vs. Balaram Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1534
ORDERT.P. Mukherjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Sessions Judge at Howrah whereby he set aside the order of an assistant sessions judge of the district directing a complaint to be made against the present opposite party to a magistrate, first class, foe an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. On a first information alleging an offence of dacoity resulting in a charge-sheet, the five petitioners were put on trial on a charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial ended in an acquittal with a finding that the allegations made in the complaint were false, frivolous and malicious. The present petitioners thereupon applied to the learned assistant sessions judge concerned for an enquiry under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the object of making a complaint against the present opposite party for an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned assistant sessions judge allowed the prayer and directed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Chandra Singh Roy Vs. Haru Chandra Singha Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1352
T.P. Mukherji, J.1. The husband of a woman who was the complainant in a case under Section 498 of the Penal Code against the respondent and another person filed this appeal with the special leave of the Court under Section 417(3) of the Criminal P.C. against the acquittal of the respondent therein. The prosecution case in short was that P.W. 4 Manjurani wag the wife of the complainant and while they were living together, the respondent and the co-accused in the case enticed her away from his house on July 17, 1964. Prior to this incident, the accused in the case is alleged to have been trying to misbehave with the complainant's wife and on one occasion there was an attempt by the present respondent to injure the complainant with a knife on his protest against their conduct. It was further alleged in the petition that the girl was being detained by the two accused in the case after the enticement. The petition of complaint was filed on July 28, 1964.2. The defence was a plea of not guil...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Kumar Sanyasi on Behalf of Ananda Mohan Sanyal Vs. District Ma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ550
R.N. Dutt, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the detention of Ananda Mohan Sanyal under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.2. The detention order was made by the District Magistrate of Malda on June 27, 1967 with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu was furnished with grounds for his detention.3. There are three grounds which read as follows:1. On 22.6.67 at about 12.00 hrs. you along with 3/4 hundred persons of your area looted away mango worth Rs. 2000 from the garden of Kutubuddin Ahmed of Chandpur, P.S. Ratua at Saharal, P.S. Gazole.2. On the same day at about 14-00 hrs. you along with 2/3 hundred persons of your village and also of the neighbouring villages looted away mango worth Rs. 500 from the garden of Sk. Mandal Box of Kalftala lane, Englishbazar town at Araji Deharul, P.S...
Tag this Judgment!Khas Busra Coal Concern (P) Ltd. Vs. Ram Nagina Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal391
Arun K. Mukherjea, J. 1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioner seeks to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 1966 passed by a Division Bench by which an earlier judgment and order passed by Ray, J. on July 30, 1963 had been confirmed. The judgment from which the petitioner now seeks to appeal to the Supreme Court was delivered bv mvself.2. The petitioner in his petition before Ray, J. asked for setting aside of an arbitration award made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Ray. J. refused to do that whereupon the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal - which was also dismissed by G. K. Mitter. J. and myself. The judgment is therefore, a judgment of affirmance. There is no dispute between the parties that the amount or value of the subject matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and still is not less than Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Roy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal524,1968CriLJ1407
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order dated 1-6-64, made by respondent No. 2, the Collector of Customs (vide Ann.E), by which a package containing 76700pieces of 7 O'clock blades (made in England) has been confiscated under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act 1878, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and under the same provision, a penalty of Rs. 2,000 has been imposed on the petitioner.2. The petitioner is an employee of a firm named Surjamani Suresh Chandra Pal at Shillong. The petitioner's case is that the disputed safety razor blades were purchased by him from Calcutta in August, 1957 and sent from Calcutta to Shillong, hut that, finding the market dull at Shillong, the firm sent the same back to Calcutta for resale there. The petitioner was both the consignor and consignee of the Railway parcel in question but for convenience of taking delivery, the P. W Bill was forwarded to one Taslim of 58, Canning Street, Calcutta. Whil...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Companies District I, Calcutta and Anr. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal503,72CWN218,[1968]69ITR833(Cal)
Sinha, C.J.1. This is an appeal which relates to the interpretation of certain articles in the ''agreement for avoidance of double taxation between India and Pakis tan' This agreement was entered into between the Dominions of India and Pakistan under the powers granted by Section 49AA of the Income-tax Act 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') Section 11A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1947 and Section 18A of the Business Profits Tax Act 1947, as adopted by the India (Adaptation of Income-tax, Profits tax and Rent Recovery Acts) Order 1947 Section 49AA of the said Act runs as follows:'The Central Government may enter into an agreement with Pakistan for the avoidance of double taxation of Income, profits and gains under this Act and under the law in force in Pakistan and may by notification in the Official Gazette make such provision as may be necessary for implementing the agreement'.The question posed in this appeal is in respect of the income assessment of the appellant f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »