Kolkata Court March 1967 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, West Bengal Vs. Anglo-american Direct Tea ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR260(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This is a reference, under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, made at the instance of both the assessee and the Commissioner of Wealth-tax.The assessment year involved is the year 1958-59, the relevant valuation date being November 30, 1957.The assessee is a sterling company incorporated in Great Britain and is a manufacturer of tea grown in its own gardens in India. In the computation of its net wealth, as on the relevant valuation date, the assessee, inter alia, claimed deduction in respect of the value of certain residential quarters, store houses and outhouses, plant and machinery, lorries and motor cars and also in respect of certain liabilities said to be taxation liabilities.The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the claims made by the assessee. Thereupon, the assessee appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of residential house with the observation that they were not used for the assessees own dwelling hou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, West Bengal Vs. Gouri Shankar Bhar.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR345(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.The assessment year is 1959-60, the corresponding valuation date being March, 31, 1959.The reference has been made in the circumstances hereinafter stated in brief. One Prafulla Chandra Bhar, a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga school of law, died intestate on April 27, 1956. His mother, widow, three sons and one daughter survived him. Since the death had taken place before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into operation, he was succeeded by his widow, Sm. Radha Rani Bhar, and his three sons, namely, Uma Sankar, estate. Gouri Sankar, a son of the deceased, took out letters of administration and filed the wealth-tax return, and his capacity as the administrator to the estate of the deceased, therein describing the status of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family. The Wealth-tax Officer also treated the status of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family. He took the net value of the assets at Rs. 8,39,125 a...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Kumar Aditya Vikram Birla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR657(Cal)
K. L. ROY J. - By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two question of law to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,05,679 being the wealth-tax paid by the assessee, was an admissible deduction in computing the assessees income under section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to rebate in terms of section 15 B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the sum of Rs. 97,000 being the value of the shares donated by the assessee to Jaya Shree Charity Trust, a charitable institution to which section 15 B applies ?'The assessment year concerned in this reference is 1960-61, for which the relevant accounting year is the financial year ending on the 31st March, 1960. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Coal Marketing Co. India Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal119,[1967]37CompCas720(Cal),71CWN449
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. The important questionfor determination on this application is,how far the Courts can call, hold, conductor control Annual General Meetings of thecompanies, beyond the time appointed bythe Companies Act I have come to the conclusion that the Courts have no such powerunder the present law in India.2. This is an application under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 for an order thatupon the undertaking of the petitioners to hold the annual general meetings of the Coal Marketing Co India Private Ltd. which ought to have been held on the 12th February 1961, 12th February 1962, 12th February 1963, 12th February 1964 12th February 1965 and the 31st January 1966, within six months from the date of the order the petitioners be relieved wholly from their liabilities for not holding such annual general meetings. The present application also seeks to relieve the petitioners for not filing balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts for the years ending on the 30th J...
Tag this Judgment!Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: [1967]19STC447(Cal)
D. Basu, J.1. This Rule is directed against the orders at annexures 'G' and 'H' to the petition, dated 13th July, 1962, and 31st January, 1963, respectively.2. The petitioner-firm carries on the business of manufacturing patent and proprietary medicines, toilet goods etc. for sale and is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and holds the Registration Certificate No. BH/50 which was issued to it on 20th September, 1941 (annexure 'A'). In this certificate, its business is described as 'manufacturing wholesale and retail', and as to exemption from sales tax, it is stated:Sales of the following goods to this dealer will be free of tax-(a) For purposes of manufacture:Chemicals, roots, herbs, paper, ink and(1) any other materials;(2) plant, machinery, spare Certified by the purchasing dealer parts, accessories and to be required for use in any consumable stores; process in the manufacture of(3) building or plumbing finished...
Tag this Judgment!Rampada Majhi Vs. Nagendranath Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ557
A.K. Das, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah dismissing the petitioner's appeal against conviction and sentence passed under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 800, in default to S.I. for one month.2. The prosecution case is that on December 9, 1961 the Food Inspector of the Bally Municipality came to the grocery of the petitioner at 210 Gossainpara Road, Bally and took samples of co3oanut oil, put them into three dry and clean phials and sealed and labelled them properly in the presence of witnesses. One sample was made over to the accused, another was Bent to the public analyst while the third was preserved in the municipal office. The public analyst reported the sample to be adulterated and then this prosecution was initiated after obtaining sanction from the Administrator of the Bally Municipality.3. Mr. B...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Ray Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Cal340,1969CriLJ879,73CWN97
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, whereby he has ordered that certain properties seized under a search warrant forwarded to him by the Presidency Magistrate, 21st Court of Bombay be sent to the Court wherefrom the warrant had emanated.2. In connection with a complaint under Sections 494, 495 and 420 Indian Penal Code filed in the Court of Presidency Magistrate at Bombay by one Smt. Raksha alias Rekha Rathindra Naty Roy against her husband Dr. R.N. Roy, a search warrant was prayed for, for recovery of movables comprising gold and silver ornaments, utensils and clothes etc., from the house of Dr. R.N. Roy's father at Calcutta. In pursuance of the prayer the learned Presidency Magistrate of Bombay issued a warrant and forwarded the same to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for execution. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on receipt of the warrant endorsed it in favour of the officcr-in-c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Biman Behari Shaw Shebait.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR815(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This reference, under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been made in circumstances hereinafter stated.The assessment years with which we are concerned are years 1957-58 and 1958-59.One Banku Bahari Saha executed a will on November 24, 1925, and thereby intended to found a debutter estate. He dedicated several properties to two deities installed by him, namely, Sri Sri Iswar Benode Behari Jew and Sri Sri Iswar Benodeswar Mahadev. In this reference we are concerned with two of the dedicated properties, namely, No. 12, Benode Behari Saha Lane, and No. 122A, Manicktola Street, both in the town of Calcutta. It is necessary for us to consider the following clauses of the will, in order to understand the question referred to this court. The dedication opens with the following paragraph :'According to the wishes of my revered father I have built the edifice of a temple, a Thakurabari a premisses No. 12, Benode Behari Saha Lane, in close proximity to our said f...
Tag this Judgment!Manickchand Durgaprosad and Bros. Vs. Balukidas Baheti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Cal104
Arun K. Mukherjea, J. 1. This is a landlord's appeal agaist a judgment and decree dated 30th May, 1959, of the Judge, Third Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta by which the plaintiffs' suit for eviction of the tenant-defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent was dismissed.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of one room namely room No. 52 on the fourth floor of premises No. 5, Jadunath Mullick Road, Calcutta, at a monthly rental of Rs. 33/-. The tenancy was according to the Hindi Sambat Calendar month and it ran from Badi 1 to Sudi 15 of each such month. The plaintiffs complained that the defendant was a habitual defaulter and in any event had made default in payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve months since the month of 'Jeth, S. Y. 2014'. The plaintiffs determined the tenancy of the defendant by a notice of ejectment dated 5th May, 1958, addressed by their Solicitor Mr. B.M. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramendra Nath Ghosh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR414(Cal)
ARUN K. MUKHERJEA J. - This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 19th November, 1965, of Banerjee J. by which the appellants application for quashing of certain proceedings under section 33B of the Income-tax Act was dismissed.When the matter came up for decision before Banerjee J. various points were urged including the point as to whether the appellant had been given reasonable opportunity of being heard, before the Commissioner of Income-tax exercised his powers under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of revising the assessment of the appellants income for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62. Banerjee J. found that all the points raised by the appellant except the point as or reasonable opportunity were covered by a decision of this court in Kalawati Debi Haralalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax and did not require any fresh consideration. These points that the learned judge seriously considered and then decided against the appellant-petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »