Kolkata Court August 1967 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Asiatic Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1967
Reported in: 72CWN713,[1970]75ITR291(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. The assessee is limited company doing business as selling agents of a textile mill. For the assessment year 1955-56 the assessee was assesssd on a total income of Rs. 1,61,089. The taxes payable thereon were Rs. 69,973, leaving a distributable balance of Rs. 91,116. Forthe assessment year 1956-57, the total income assessed was Rs. 1,07,429 and the taxes payable thereon were determined at Rs. 46,668 leaving distributable balance of Rs. 60,761. The assessee-company did not declare any dividend either in respect of its accounting year for the assessment year 1955-56 or for the assessment year 1956-57. On being required by the Income-tax Officer to show cause why the provisions of Section 23A would not be applied to the assessee-company, the assessee claimed that, as it had suffered a loss of Rs. 11,88,000 in respect of 12,000 shares of Elphinstone Mills Ltd. of Bombay purchased by the assessee, it was not possible for reasonable for it to have declared any dividend in eithe...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Jatish Chandra Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ987
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 417(3) of the Criminal P.C. against an order passed by a Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta acquitting the accused of the charges under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The prosecution case is as follows : Respondent No. 1 Jatish Chandra Saha is the proprietor of an Oil Mill, respondent No. 2 located at 373, Russa Road, Calcutta. On August 12, 1964, Food Inspector Sunil Biswas went to the mill and found therein mustard oil stored/exposed for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from respondent No. 1 as sample for the purpose of analysis in presence of witnesses. A part of the sample was sent to the public analyst who submitted a report that the mustard oil was adulterated and unfit for human consumption. This prosecution was then started.3. The defence is that the Food Inspector took sample of unfiltered mustard oil which was not food for human consumption and therefore, no offe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax, W. Bengal Vs. Smt. Champa Kumari Singhi an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal74,72CWN660,[1968]67ITR561(Cal)
Banerjee, J. 1. This reference, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has been made in the circumstances hereinafter related.2. For the assessment year 1957-1958 (the relevant valuation date being December 31, 1956) the Wealth-tax Officer assessed the assessee Sm. Champa Kumari Singhi, in respect of family assets, in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family. Against the order of assessment, the assessee appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, inter alia, contended.(1) that regard being had to the description of the assesses in the notice of demand,as Champa Kumari Singhi and ors., the assessee should be deemed to nave been treated as an association of persons and that such a unit was not chargeable to tax under the Wealth-tax Act. (2) that the assessee being a member of a Jain family could not be treated as a Hindu Undivided Family. (3) that even if the assessee be treated as a Hindu Undivided Family the imposition of Wealth-tax on a Hindu Undivided Family wa...
Tag this Judgment!Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd. Vs. N.B. Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal545,72CWN679
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. This Rule is directed against a Notification No S. O. 2043 dated the 1st August, 1963 under Section 3(1) and Notification No S. O. 1470 dated the 18th April, 1964 under Section 6(3) of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of this Act on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution in so far as it does not provide for compensation for the loss or injury to the sub-soil rights in the land over which the pipeline of the respondent No. 4 - the Indian Refineries Ltd. (since called as Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) is being run.2. Though there was some controversy at an earlier stage of the hearing as to whether and to what extent, the petitioner own interests in the surface as well as in the sub-soil of the disputed lands over which the pipelim is being run eventually, after the production of documents on either side, it has been acknowledged that the petitioner coal...
Tag this Judgment!Abani Bhusan Biswas Vs. Hindusthan Cables Ltd., Burdwan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal124,72CWN410,[1968(16)FLR289]
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of Respondent No. 1, the Hindusthan Cables Ltd. (Annexure A to the petition), a Government of India Undertaking, 'owned' by the Central Government within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which the Central Government is the sole shareholder2. On 29-11-63, the petitioner, a Driver-cum-Mechanic was suspended by the Administrative Officer of respondent No. 1 by tht order at Annexure B to the Petition. In this order, it was alleged that the petitioner was guiltv of 'insubordination and disobedience' to orders issued by his superior authority and was accordingly considered 'undesirable' to be retained in the service of the company. On 2-12-63, the Administrative Authority served the charge-sheet at Annexure C to the petition and asked the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the charge of misconduct comprising of--(i) Wilful insubordination or disobedience to superior orde...
Tag this Judgment!Moolesh JaIn Vs. ImumuddIn Ansari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal364,1968CriLJ1058,71CWN851
ORDERA.K. Das, J.1. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 731 of 1967 and 732 of 1967 are at the instance of the same petitioner who is the Chief Administrative Officer of M/s. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd., having its factory at Budge Budge, 24-Parganas. The opposite parties are workmen employed in the same Mills, this judgment.2. Both these cases are disposed of by 3. Criminal Revision Case No. 731 of 1967 arises out of an application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the opposite parties workers formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully confined and restrained several management personnel of the Mills and did not allow them to move. During confinement, the officers were subjected to insult, maltreatment and cruelty in various ways. The Officer-in-charge of Budge Budge police station was contacted but no assistance was made available. An application was then filed before the Magistrate at Alipore and he issued a search warrant for recovery of...
Tag this Judgment!Biri Trading Co. Vs. Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC169(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 21(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The assessee Messrs Biri Trading Company is a firm having its office at 20/3, Armenian Street, Calcutta, and is a dealer registered under the Act. For the four quarters ended 1st day of Chaitra, 1357 B.S. (14th April, 1950 to 14th April, 1951) the assessee sold goods (biri) worth Rs. 86,280 to purchasers in Cooch Behar. The sales took place subsequent to the 1st January, 1950, but before the 1st January, 1951. There is no dispute that the above goods were despatched to Cooch Behar by the assessee.3. In the course of its assessment to sales tax for the above period, the assessee claimed deduction of the above sales worth Rs. 86,280 made to dealers in Cooch Behar from his gross turnover under Section 5(2)(a)(v) of the Act, as being sales to places outside West Bengal. This claim was disallowed by the Commercial Tax Officer, who exempted only an amount...
Tag this Judgment!Lokenath Gupta and ors. Vs. Credits Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas599(Cal),72CWN624
S.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application made by Lokenath Gupta, Kanailal Agarwalla and Ramratan Panday, three directors of the Credits Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as the said company for an order for winding up the said company on the ground that it is just and equitable that the said company should be wound up. The registered office of the said company is situate at No. 65/1, Maharshi Devendra Road, Calcutta. The said company was incorporated in the year 1958 and is a private company limited by shares. The objects for which the said company was established have been set out in paragraph 5 of the petition and sub-paragraphs thereunder.2. The said company was promoted by Kanailal Agarwalla and his son, Lokenath Gupta, two of the petitioners, one Srikrishnadas Agarwalla and his son, Anand Mohan Gupta, both of No. 23, Garanhata Street, Calcutta. The said promoters were appointed the first directors of the company and are still the directors of the said company. On or about No...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty West Bengal Vs. Biswanath Rungt.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR748(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This is a reference under section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question referred to this court is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the break-up value of the shares held by the deceased in Messrs. Minerals and Metal Private Ltd. on the basis of the balance-sheet of that company as on June 18, 1958, the Tribunal was justified in,(a) valuing the goodwill of that company at Rs. 50,000;(b) allowing, as a deduction from the assets, the proposed dividend of Rs. 74,740 as provided for in the balance-sheet ?'The circumstances under which the above question comes up for consideration are hereinafter related in brief. One Shrimati Shanti Devi Rungta died on September 26, 1958. The deceased held 440 ordinary shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each in Messrs. Minerals & Metals Private Ltd. It is not disputed that the total of ordinary shares issued by Messrs. Minerals & Metals Private Ltd. was 2,020 shares of Rs. 100 each fully pa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, West Bengal Vs. Jhagrakhand Collieries (Pr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR572(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This is a reference under section 27 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.The statement of case related to two assessment years 1957-58 and 1959-60, corresponding valuation dates being December 31, 1956, and December 31, 1958.The assessee is a company doing coal-mining business. In making a return of its net wealth as on the two valuation dates hereinbefore mentioned, the assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 28,37,282-8-0, representing taxes, penalties, etc., assessed and demanded in the year 1952. It is not disputed that certificates, under the public Demands Recovery Act, have been issued for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 28,37,282-8-0 and it is not also disputed that notice under section 7 of the public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, was served on the assessee and that recovery proceedings were pending on the relevant valuation dates.The Wealth-tax Officer disallowed the assessees claim for deduction of the said amount from the net wealth. An appeal preferred by the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »