Kolkata Court September 1969 Judgments
Kamal Mukharji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal250
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. The prayers in this Petition are--(a) That the Respondents be restrained from giving effect to the non-statutory Rules of 1952 (Annexure A to the Petition) for recruitment to non-Gazetted posts in the Department of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics under the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) and the order at Annexure H, dated July 19, 1957, modifying the Rule (the reference in the Prayer clause of the Petitioner to Annexure G is wrong); and(b) That the Respondents be commended to promote the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent in that Department with effect from the year 1954.2. The petitioner was initially appointed a Typist and confirmed as such in 1940. Later on, he was allowed to officiate as Lower Division Clerk and eventually the two posts of Typist and Lower Division. Clerk were merged and the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Lower Division Clerk from June 1, 1948 (para. 2 of the affidavit-in-opposition).3. The petitioner says that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1969
Reported in: [1971]80ITR627(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. In my opinion this application under Article 226 of the Constitution should succeed and the rule should be made absolute.2. The petition involves a consideration of certain provisions of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, which had a very short existence as it was superseded by the enactment of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Under the 1963 Act, a charge of tax was on the chargeable profits of the previous year which exceeded the standard deduction at the rate specified in Schedule III of the Act. Section 6 provided for the making of returns. Sub-section (1) of that section enacted that every company, whose chargeable profits assessable under the Act exceeded during the previous year the amount of standard deduction, should furnish a return of its chargeable profits during the previous year and the amount of any deficiency available for being set off against such profits in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner on or before the 30th day of Sep...
Tag this Judgment!Ragunath Prasad Jhunjhunwala and anr. Vs. Hind Overseas Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-1969
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas308(Cal)
Mukherjea, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 6th July, 1967, by which the learned trial judge disposed of two applications. In the first application, namely, Company Application No. 183 of 1966, which was an application praying for stay of winding-up proceedings of a company, the learned trial judge ordered such stay and at the same time dismissed the connected winding-up petition, namely, Company Petition No. 123 of 1966, which had been filed by the appellants herein. The second application, viz., Company Application No. 136 of 1966, which was one for appointment of a provisional liquidator and also for an order of injunction restraining the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein from acting or holding themselves out as directors of the company, was dismissed by the learned trial judge. These two appeals were by agreement of parties heard together and we are disposing of these two appeals by one judgment.2. On or about 9th August, 1966, the Hind Overse...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingdas Bangur Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-1969
Reported in: [1973]87ITR340(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the jurisdiction of the respondent-Income-tax Officer to issue a notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and to take proceedings thereunder are challenged. The petitioner, Narsingdas Bangur, was a partner of Magniram Bangur & Co., a firm which was assessed as a registered firm under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, until the time hereinafter mentioned. For the assessment year 1961-62, the accounting year of the said firm was the Sambat year 2016, ending on the 20th October, 1960. By an agreement between the partners of the said firm it was decided that a company under the name of Magniram Bangur & Co. (P.) Ltd. would be incorporated and all the assets and liabilities of the firm would be transferred to the said company. In accordance with the said agreement the memorandum and articles of association of the proposed company were executed on October 18, 1960, and the said company was registere...
Tag this Judgment!Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR220(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. The petitioner is a sterling company with its head office in London carrying on business in tea in the United Kingdom. It also holds shares in different tea companies in other parts of the world. It has dividend income in India from its shares in M/s. Brooke Bond (India) Ltd, which is its 100 per cent. subsidiary company. The petitioner claims that it also carries on the business of investing monies in shares of tea companies and its income from dividend is income from its business. It is to be noted that the petitioner's status for any particular assessment year depends on whether its income in India exceeds or is less than its income outside India. For the assessment year 1956-57, the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, on the 28th March, 1957, completed the assessment of the petitioner in the status of a non-resident in respect of its dividend income in India only and determined the total income at Rs. 53,11,958. The assessment for the...
Tag this Judgment!Bikash Chandra Ghose Vs. U.N. Bala, Income-tax Officer, b Ward and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1969
Reported in: [1972]84ITR78(Cal)
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of appropriate writs prohibiting the respondent-Income-tax Officer from proceeding with the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1963-64 on the basis that the beneficiaries of the estate are the members of a Hindu undivided family. Two brothers, Ramcharan Sarkar and Gagan Chandra Sarkar, were governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. Ramcharan died some time in 1902, leaving him surviving his three sons, Surendra, Bidhu Bhusan and Ganapati. Gagan died some time in 1904 after having made and published his will which was duly probated in the Alipore Court some time thereafter. Gagan appointed his wife, Kusum Kumari, and his nephew, Surendra as the executrix and executor, respectively, of his said will and declared that he had taken Ganapati, his brother's son, in adoption and that, subject, to certain legacies and payment of maintenance to his widow for which the entire estate shall be char...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central) Vs. Mohan Lal Nopany
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1969
Reported in: [1970]78ITR435(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment made under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1959-60, for which the corresponding valuation date was 31st March, 1959. The assessee is an individual holding certain shares in Messrs. Hind Mills Ltd. and Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills Ltd. These shares are not quoted in the stock exchange. Before the Wealth-tax Officer it was not disputed that the break-up value of the shares of these companies computed on the basis of the balance-sheets should be taken as the market values thereof. The assessee, however, contended before the Wealth-tax Officer that in computing the break-up value, of the shares of Messrs. Hind Mills Ltd. and Sri Hanuman Sugar Mills Ltd., the depreciable assets of the two companies should be taken at their written down values as per income-tax records. The Tribunal was of the opinion that no depreciation had been shown in the balance-sheets and, therefore, it would be unrealistic to take the book ...
Tag this Judgment!Punyananda Avadhut Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal241,1970CriLJ806
R.N. Dutt, J.1. On some first information report lodged by the petitioner, the police made an investigation and thereafter submitted a charge-sheet against the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 33. There was an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said opposite parties were committed to the Court of Session at Purulia under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is now pending trial before the Sessions Judge, Purulia.2. The petitioner has obtained this Rule with a view to get the case transferred from the Sessions Court at Purulia to some other Sessions Court for trial. The State has entered appearance and Mr. Banerjee, the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer, informs us that the State neither supports nor opposes the Rule. Mr. Mukherjee appears for the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 33 and opposes this Rule.3. Mr. Mukherjee at the outset takes two preliminary objections. He submits that the petitioner makes no aspersion or all...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Chandra Paul Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal282
ORDERP. Banerjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of cancellation of the examination of the petitioner for the year 1968 and debarring the petitioner from appearing in the examination of Pt. I and Pt. II of B. A. for the year 1969-70. The petitioner was a student of Surendra Nath College affiliated to the University of Calcutta. The petitioner sat for the examination of B. A. Pt. I in the year 1968 of the Calcutta University and his examination Centre was at Taltala High School. When the result of the examination came out, it appeared that against his name there was a remark 'reported against'. By a letter dated 19th November, 1968 issued by the Secretary Board of Discipline, the petitioner was charged with breach of discipline at the B. A. Part I Examination, 1968 alleging that In contravention of the rules of examination, the petitioner was found copying from books and notes while appearing in Bengali, Paper II Examination. The petitioner was directed to appear before the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jasrup Baijnath and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1969
Reported in: [1971]82ITR513(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal. The statement of the case raises two questions for answer by this court. They are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the rebate of super-tax was allowable to the assessee under Clause (ii) of the first proviso to Paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1957 ?' '(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative--whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no withdrawal of rebate granted by the first proviso to Paragraph D of Part II of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1957 was justified under Clause (i) of the second proviso to the said paragraph ?' 2. The relevant facts recorded in the statement of the case are as follows : The assessee, Messrs. Jasrup Baijnath Bahety & Sons Private Ltd., of 35, Cross Street, Calcutta, is a private limited company. The controversy relates to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »