Kolkata Court March 1967 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.
M. A. Ispahani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR141(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessment year involved is the year 1949-50, the relevant accounting year being the year ended on December 31, 1948. The question referred to this court is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount deemed to have been distributed to the assessee by virtue of an order under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, against Messrs. M. M. Ispahani Ltd. had been validly assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in his hands during the relevant assessment year ?'The question arises in the following circumstances. The assessee is an individual and a shareholder of a company known as M. M. Ispahani Ltd. It is admitted that :(a) M. M. Ispahani Ltd. was originally incorporated in British India as a private company and used to have its registered office in the town of Calcutta.(b) On the eve of the partition of India, M. M. Ispahani Ltd. shifted its registered office...
Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1967
Reported in: [1967]64ITR568(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act has been made in circumstances here in after stated.It is well-known that, in the year 1947, the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act was passed 'for the purpose of ascertaining whether the actual incidence of taxation of income is and has been in recent years in accordance with the provisions of law, and the extent to which the existing law and procedure for the assessment and recovery of such taxation is adequate to prevent the evasion there of, to make provision for an investigation to be made into such matters.' Section 5 (1) of the Act invested the Central Government with power to refer particular cases or points in a case to the commission for investigation and report if the Central Government was of the opinion that there had been substantial evasion of Income-tax payment in such cases. Similarly if the course of an investigation under section 5 (1), the commission had reasons to believe ...
Annalie Prashad Vs. Romesh Proshad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal48
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. The appellant before us and her husband, who is the respondent were the first petitioner for divorce by mutual consent. That petition was filed in the court below on December 20, 1963. Thereafter, on November 25, 1964, an application was filed by the present appellant for being allowed to give evidence bv affidavit under circumstances stated in the said petition 2. The application does not appear to have been opposed by the respondent but the learned trial Judge, being of the opinion that, having regard to the language of Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act, under which the instant proceeding was filed for divorce by mutual consent, affidavit evidence could not be allowed and Order 19 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits such evidence, had no application rejected the said application. The learned trial Judge relied for the purpose upon the following words in the statute (Section 28(2)) namely, 'the District Court shall be satisfied after hear...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›