Kolkata Court June 1969 Judgments
Haripada Moitra Vs. President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal154
Das, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside an order dt. March 10, 1965, passed by the opposite party President Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dismissing the petitioner and imposing a penalty by way of deducting a portion of the contributory provident fund.2. The petitioner Haripada Moitra joined the Improvement Trust Tribunal as accountant in 1935 and was promoted as Chief Ministerial Officer in 1938, the designation of which part was changed to Superintendent of the Improvement Tribunal.His retirement was due on March 15, 1959 on attainment of the age of 55 but he was granted extension of service for one year at a time for six such terms, the last of which expired on March 15, 1965.3. In 1936, the then President of the Tribunal directed the petitioner to look after the records of the tribunal in addition and to stay in a portion of the officepremises of the tribunal as a Court keeper, though such stay was not a condition of the employment ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR603(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessee is a limited company having a sugar mill at Motihari in North Bihar and also running an agricultural farm for growing sugarcane which is also used for the production of sugar in its mill. Under a managing agency agreement dated the 16th of October, 1954, Messrs. Hanuman Industries (India) Ltd. were appointed managing agents for a period of ten years from 1st of October, 1954, and that the managing agents were entitled to a remuneration, by way of commission, equal to 10% of the pet profits subject to a minimum payment of Rs. 2(0,000. The assessee claimed deduction of the managing agency commission amounting to Rs. 48,735. The Income-tax Officer found that the commission was worked out at 10 per cent. of the net profits including the agricultural profits amounting to Rs. 97,407. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee was entitled to claim as deduction from the textile profits only the remuneration at 10 per cent. of the profits...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1969
Reported in: [1971]80ITR14(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1960-61. The corresponding accounting year is the calendar year is 1959. On the 13th June, 1960, a notice under Section 22(2) dated the 1st June, 1960, was served on the assessee. In terms of this notice the assessee's return should have been filed by the 18th July, 1960. But, on that date, the assessee asked for two months' time to file its return. The Income-tax Officer allowed the extension but informed the assessee that there would be no further extensions. On the 16th January, 1961, the assessee was served with a notice under Section 23(3). Then, on the 17th January, 1961, the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer, however, took more than two years to complete the assessment. The assessment was made on October 31, 1962, after the commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under the provisions of Section 297(2)(g) of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jamnadas Sriniwas Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR656(Cal)
Sabyasachi mukharji, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. During the financial year 1905-56, which is the assessee's accounting year for the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee advanced a sum of Rs. 27,506 to Sri Sriniwas Fatehpuria, a shareholder and a director of the company. The original assessment for the year 1956-57 on the asscssee-company was made on the 13th February, 1958. Subsequently, in the course of the assessment for the year 1957-58, the Income-tax Officer discovered that the assessee had made the aforesaid loan to one of its shareholders and directors. Action was, therefore, taken by the Income-tax Officer under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and as the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee-company had sufficient accumulated profits on the first day of the financial year 1955-56, to cover the advance of Rs. 27,506 aforesaid, he treated the aforesaid sum of Rs. 27,506 as dividend paid to Sri Sriniwas Fatchpuria during the financial year ...
Tag this Judgment!Westminster Bank Executor and Trustee Company (Channel Islands) Ltd. V ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1969
Reported in: [1971]81ITR723(Cal)
Donaldson J. gave judgment on July 24, 1968, in the course of which he said that the plaintiffs had asked for and had been supplied with particulars of the facts and matters and of the statutory provisions on which the defendants relied as authorising the deduction of income tax; the defendants had replied that the interest payments satisfied the description of 'interest of money' and were therefore charged to income tax under Case III of Schedule D by section 123(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1952; that under section 169 (1) (c) of the Act they were empowered to make such deduction and that paragraph (d) of the subsection required the plaintiffs to accept; and that under section 170 the defendants were obliged to make such a deduction.His Lordship added that the defendants had not committed themselves on whether the section applicable was section 169 or section 170, though that matter might be of importance as between them and the Inland Revenue but not as between them and the plaintiffs....
Tag this Judgment!Laduram Ramrichpal and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'E' Ward, (income-t ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal440
ORDERT.K. Basu, J.1. In this application the petitioner challenges three notices dated the 21st April, 1964, the 13th December, 1965 and the 21st December, 1965 for imposition of penalty issued under the provisions of Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment was made under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, now repealed.2. Mr. Siddharta Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that this point is concluded in favour of the petitioner by my judgment in the case of Narendra Sharma v. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle 15, Calcutta, Matter No. 213 of 1966 (Cal).3. Counsel for the Revenue submitted before me that there are certain aspects of the matter which have not been considered by me in my above judgment. Considering the importance of the subject-matter, I gave leave to the Revenue to agitate these points in this application.4. Mr. Dipankar Gupta appearing on behalf of the Revenue drew my attention in the first place to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR537(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, The Tribunal has sent to this court a statement of the case on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property tax paid by the assessee in Japan on its vessels was allowable as deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The assessment years are 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The corresponding previous years were the financial years ending on the 31st of March, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959, respectively. The respondent is a nonresident shipping company. Its registered office is in Japan. It has been assessed to income-tax for the assessment years aforesaid under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, with respect to net Indian earnings. The assessee did not maintain separate accounts for its Indian business ; its net profits on the basis of its world profit and loss account was computed under the Indian Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!Kaviraj Basudevananda Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ632
N.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute.2. The Rule is against an order dated the 12th March, 1969, passed by Sri K.R. Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class, Howrah in Case No. G. R. 1011 of 1967/ T. R. 141 of 1963--charging the accused-petitioner Kaviraj Basudevananda under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code where to he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and fixing two dates for evidence.3. The facts leading on to the present Rule are short and simple. On the 6th April, 1967, one Dibakar Chakravorty as the Manager of the Estate of Mr. C.L. Daga and Sm. Ratan Kunwar Debi, filed a petition of complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the present accused Kaviraj Basudevananda, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Howrah, and on receipt of the said complaint, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, sent the petition of complaint to the Police for taking cognizance and for investigation. The said complaint, thereupon, was treated as the First I...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Jhimi Bajoria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Cal13,[1971]80ITR273(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. The assessment year, in this reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is 1961-62. The corresponding accounting year is R. N. 1961. The assessee is a shareholder of the North Bengal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. The registered office of this company is in Calcutta but its mills are in East Pakistan. The company's profits arise wholly in Pakistan. For the previous year relating to the assessment year 1960-61 the company is said to have declared dividend on the 6th October, 1960. The assessee's share of such dividend should have amounted to Rs. 8,000/-.2. Before the Income-tax Officer the assessee contended that the said sum of Rupees 8,000/- was not assessable in her hands since the company did not issue any dividend warrants and its declaration of dividend was subject to remittance from Pakistan. In fact, by consent of parties the company's relevant resolutions have been placed before us. The resolutions run thus:'A dividend aggregating Rs. 60,0...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Proh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal167,1970CriLJ571
R.N. Dutt, J.1. The respondent was tried by a Magistrate under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51, In default to rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. The respondent thereafter made an appeal and the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. Thereafter the State Government has filed this appeal against this order of acquittal.2. The prosecution case was as follows:3. The respondent was employed under Messrs. Nandaram Deotram, a firm at Kurseong. The firm was an authorised dealer in iron and steel under the Iron and Steel (Control) Order. 1956. On November 17, 1960 the respondent sold three bundles of galvanised corrugated sheets to one Beharilal Bahsaria against permit no. 69/60, dated November 10, 1960, granted by the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, Beharilal paid Rs. 294.52 P. as price and a cash memo was written and granted to him mentioning the rate at Rs. 880 per ton. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »