Kolkata Court January 1969 Judgments
Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR334(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukmarji, J. 1. In respect of assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49 three different orders were passed by the Income-tax Officer. In respect of the said orders, appeals were preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It appears that the said appeals came up for hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 20th February, 1961, and 17th March, 1961, and the learned advocate on behalf of the assessee appeared before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the said dates and advanced one set of arguments in all the three cases. Thereafter, on the 19th March, 1962, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by an order dealt with and disposed of the contention--and the points involved in the said three appeals relating to the said three assessment orders. It was contended before the Tribunal on further appeal that the AppellateAssistant Commissioner has no power and authority to do so. The Tribunal was unable to accept the said contention and observed ...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Agency Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal193
K.L. Roy, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff firm against the Life Insurance Corporation of India for arrears of remuneration or in the alternative for damages in respect of an agreement Between the plaintiff firm and Aryya Insurance Company Limited. The case for the plaintiff is that on or about the 1st June. 1954 Aryya Insurance Company Limited appointed the plaintiff firm as its special representative for the purpose of introducing persons willing to act as insurance agents of the company. It was further agreed that on the acceptance by the company and appointment of any such persons as its agents the plaintiff guaranteed that insurance business worth at least Rupees five lacs annually would be procured by such agents yielding a premium collection of about Rs. 20,000/-, and in consideration thereof the plaintiff firm would be entitled to an allowance of Rs. 200/- per month and in addition a flat rate of commission of 65 per cent on the first year's premium collection including age...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Biswanath Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR39(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessee is an individual. By three deeds of gifts dated 18th April, 1960, the assessee Biswariath Paul, gifted to his three sons Sankar Nath Paul, Ambar Nath Paul and Dipendra Nath Paul, certain movable and immovable properties as described in the schedules attached to the said respective deeds of gifts. The said deeds of gifts have been made annexures to the statement of case in this case. Each deed of gift contained the following recitals:'Whereas the grantor has decided to grant and to make a gift to the donee of the properties described in Schedule A hereunder absolutely in severalty for ever subject to /payment by the donee of a sum of rupees twenty thousand only to the said grantor such payment to be made within two years from the date of the execution of these presents and also of the property described in Schedule B hereunder absolutely and also of an undivided equal fourth part of share of the property mentioned in Schedule C absolutely AND WHERE...
Tag this Judgment!Shewkissen Bhatter Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal441,[1969]74ITR331(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference arises out of the assessment for the assessment year 1956-57. The relevant previous year ended on 31st December, 1955. The assessee is the trustee to the estate of Sm. Anardeyi Sethani. A title suit being Suit No. 61 of 1923 was filed by one Durga Prosad Chamaria against Sm. Anardeyi Sethani and others claiming title over certain properties including the property at Chandmari Road; Howrah. A consent decree was passed on the 19th April, 1928. Under the terms of the said decree it was provided that the said Chandmari Road property was to belong to Sm. Anardeyi Sethani and she on her part was to make a payment of the sum of Rs. 8,61,000 to the plaintiff in that suit. There was a stipulation of payment of compound interest on the unpaid amount at Rs. 63/4 per cent with yearly rests. It was further provided that Rs. 4,25,000 was to be paid on the execution of the terms of settlement and then monthly instalments of Rs. 35,000 for 17 months and the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas Jerambhai and ors. Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal204
ORDERT.K. Basu, J. 1. In this case the petitioner challenges three notices dated the 25th October, 1967 issued on petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Export Department, Customs House, Calcutta, asking the petitioner to show cause why certain bales of Hessian and Tarpaulin cloth meant for export to Czechoslovakia should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The substance of the allegations in the notice to show cause is that the petitioner had in the declaration filed under the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) shown as the destination of the goods various countries in Eastern Europe where the goods to be exported were, in fact, meant for different countries in Western Europe. It is alleged that the petitioner has thereby contravened the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Act read with Sections 23-A and 23-B thereof. 2...
Tag this Judgment!SerajuddIn and Company Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Sealdah Charge and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1969
Reported in: [1969]23STC258(Cal)
D. Basu, J.1. By the assessment order at annexure N to the petition, respondent 1 has disallowed the claim of the petitioner for deduction from its gross turnover for taxation under the Bengal (Finance) Sales Tax Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that the three items at page 95 of the petition do not constitute sales in the course of export within the meaning of Article 286(1) (b) of the Constitution, as contended by the petitioner. Though the petition comprised relief against all the three items amounting to Rs. 26,23,067.15, at the hearing, Dr. Debi Pal on behalf of the petitioner has confined his case to two items only, namely, item 1 amounting to Rs. 9,47,940.62 and item 3 relating to Rs. 12,04,097.20.2. The question of law involved in this case has been fully examined, with reference to all authorities then available, in the Division Bench case of S.K. Roy v. Board of Revenue A.I.R. 1967 Cal. 338, to which I was a party. The two propositions formulate...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Debi Malpani Vs. Income-tax Officer, d-ward and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR674(Cal)
T.K. Basu, J. 1. On or about the 13th March, 1963, the petitioner, Mohini Debi Malpani, submitted a return of her income for the assessment year 1960-61 to the Income-tax Officer, 'J' Ward, District I (I), Calcutta, who at that time had jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner, Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued by the said Income-tax Officer calling upon the petitioner to produce the evidence on which the petitioner relied in support, of her return. At the request of the petitioner, the time for production of the evidence was extended by the said Income-tax Officer until the 12th February, 1964. On the 12th February, 1964, one C. M. Chopra, on behalf of the petitioner, produced certain rokar and khata on which the petitioner relied in support of her return.2. On the 30th March, 1965, the petitioner received a notice of demand dated the 23rd March, 1965, issued under Section 156 of the Act calling...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal88,1970CriLJ212,73CWN651
Das, J. 1. This is a revisional application against an order of conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X of 1955. The petitioners were sentenced to Rule I, for three months each and the rice seized was confiscated. There was an appeal against the order but the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution are as follows :-- On April 5, 1964 the petitioners were detected moving with six cart-loads of rice in a field in mouza Laka within the five mile border area between West Bengal and Bihar. The Cordoning Officer intercepted the carts which were being driven by petitioners 2-5, who told that the rice belonged to petitioner no. 1, who was also moving with the carts. The carts with the men were taken to the police Station where a written complaint was filed by the Inspector, Investigation start-ed and charge-sheet was submitted against parties.3. Defence was a plea of innocence and the petitioners contended that rice was being taken to Burdwan ...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Taran Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal75,73CWN701
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. In this Commercial Cause, the plaintiff Co. Associated Power Co. Ltd. is suing Ram Taran Roy, carrying on business under the name and style of Roy Dutta & Co. for the recovery of Rs. 7460.06 P as the price for the supply of electrical energy. 2. There were a number of points raised in the Written Statement but the issues have now been considerably narrowed, in the circumstances, I am just about to mention. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the defendant, raised only the following issue: 'Has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit on the ground that this is a suit not for goods supplied but for electricity consumed?' 3. Mr. Sinha, appearing for the defendant, abandoned all other contentionsraised in the Written Statement and subject to the above issue, he admitted allother facts pleaded in the plaint. It is alsoto be recorded that Mr. Sinha for thedefendant does not contest either thecontent or the amounts and figures pleaded in the plaint. 4. The only question for d...
Tag this Judgment!Jiban Krishna Chatterjee Vs. State Transport Authority, W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Cal607
ORDERA.K. Sinha, J.1. In this Rule the petitioner prays for quashing certain orders made by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 cancelling the petitioner's permanent stage carriage permit. Briefly the facts are as follows:The petitioner was granted a permanent stage carriage permit in respect of Bus No. WBR 396 on Route No. 84 granted by the respondent No. 3. By a show cause notice dated 19-9-1903 the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation against the proposed order of cancellation of his said permit on the ground that the said bus was being operated upon by another person named Tarapada Saha. The petitioner submitted his explanation but the respondent No. 3 not being satisfied cancelled the petitioner's permit under Section 60(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Transport Authority. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the Appellate Sub-Committee, the respondent No. 3 by its ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »