Kolkata Court November 1968 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.
Giridharilal Jhajharia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: [1970]78ITR133(Cal)
Ray, J.1. This appeal is from an order of Mitra J., dated November 23,1966. 2. The appellant made an application under Article 226 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the records of the proceedings relating to orders dated April 6, 1964. The orders dated April 6, 1964, were passed by the revenue.3. The orders were passed under these circumstances. The appellant filed returns for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, and was assessed on March 30, 1961, and March 20, 1962, respectively. By letter dated September 2, 1963, the petitioner was called to produce his books of account for 2012 Ram-Navami and 2013 Ram-Navami on September 6, 1968. The petitioner produced the books of account before respondent No. 2 as required and respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to explain why there was a difference between the amounts of certain commission paid by Searsole Coal Co. Ltd. to the petitioner as disclosed by that company and the amounts shown in the returns filed by the petitione...
D.G. of Health Services and ors. Vs. Bikash Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal525,73CWN249,(1970)ILLJ70Cal
Ray, J.1. These two appeals were heard one after another.2. These two appeals are from the judgment and order of Mitra, J. dated 2 August, 1966.3. In appeal No. 28 of 1968 the appellant is Bikash Chatterjee and in appeal No. 37 of 1967 the appellants are Director General of Health Services. Director, Central Drugs Laboratory and the Union of India. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is the respondent in both the appeals. For the sake of brevity the appellants in appeal No. 37 of 1967 will be referred to as the Drugs Laboratory and the respondent Council of Scientific and Industrial Research will be referred to as the Council, and the appellant in appeal No. 28 of 1968 will be referred to as Chatterjee.4. Chatterjee filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the orders dated 18 July. 1963, 30 July. 1963. 3 August. 1963 and 9 August, 1963 should not be quashed and wh...
Wisdom Vs. ChamberlaIn (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR306(Cal)
HARMAN L. J. - This is an appeal for a decision of Goff J. on a case stated by the general commissioners of income-tax. The judges decision was in favour of the taxpayer. He held that the profit in question was not assessable to income-tax. It is a straight forward kind of case, in my view and no great researches into the taxing Acts are required. The case merely is : Whether tax under Schedule D is exigible under case I of section 123 - 'tax in respect of any trade arrived on in the United Kingdom.......... ' The only gloss upon that is that, in the definition section (hundreds of sections away -section 526) 'trade includes every trade, manufacture, adventure or concern in the nature of trade.' So that it need not be a trade if it is an adventure in the nature of trade, which enlarges the words of the section.The case concerns the affairs of an factor of the name of Norman Wisdom, a man making a very large professional income. Having some savings, which no doubt were not of much signi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) Vs. Kaniram Hazarimall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR853(Cal)
Chatterjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. This family carried on various business including money-lending. The year of assessment in question is 1953-54. The assessee was a partner in a firm styled Kaniram Jankidas of Daltonganj in which the assessee's share was 0-12-0 while that of the other partner was 0-4-0. Pending this partnership, the other partner Ramniranjan Kejriwal, withdrew from time to time certain amounts of money. Evidently he withdrew more money than what he was then entitled to on his own share. It may be that the sums the said partner withdrew from the said firm did constitute no debt on the dates of withdrawal. The said partner did not become on those dates a debtor either to the firm or to the other partner ; but the firm was dissolved during the year ending on 20th October, 1949.2. Accounts were then taken of the said firm and it was found that Ramniranjan Kejriwal had withdrawn a ...
State of West Bengal Vs. A.C. Mohammed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal531
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. These aretwo appeals, arising out of the requisition of premises No. P-17, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta (1st, 2nd and 3rd floors), under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. The dispute was with regard to the monthly compensation, payable for the said requisition. As there was no agreement between the parties on the point, there was a reference under Section 11 (1) (b) of the above Act. In this reference, an award was made by the arbitrator and both parties, being dissatisfied with the same, have filed the instant appeals. The first appeal (F. A. No. 97 of 1957) is by the State of West Bengal, the other appeal (F. A. No. 177 of 1957) is by the Claimants M/s. A. C. Mohammad. The prohibitory order under Section 3 (3) of the above Act was issued on 25th February, 1949. It was actually served on 5th March 1949. The prohibitory order was in regard to the entire premises, P-17, Mission Row Extension except the ground floo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›