Kolkata Court January 1970 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Baijnath Sarda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal56
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. On the 17th February, 1964 Baijnath Sards, the respondent herein, instituted Title No. 5 of 1964 in the 6th Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore against the Union of India and the Chief Operating Superintendent, South Eastern Railway. The plaintiff's case as made in the plaint, is as follows :--The plaintiff is a mine owner and deals in minerals ores which he despatches to various places in and outside India and that he was given a private siding of 200 ft. at Noamundi on the South Eastern Railway for the purpose of handling of Wagons meant for the despatch of his goods.. The plaintiff furtherstated that on an application being made on or about 8th April, 1959 for an extension of the said siding by at least 1000 ft. or more, the defendants namely, the petitioners herein, had granted an extension by 250 ft. The plaintiff has asserted that the Railway Administration had agreed to extend the said siding by 650 ft. for which the plaintiff deposited necessary co...
B. S. C. Footwear Ltd. Vs. Ridgway (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR857(Cal)
January 23, 1970. RUSSELL, L.J. - The appellant taxpayers trade is that of selling footwear as retailers from their many retail shops up and down the country. For the most part they acquire the footwear for their trade from the manufacturers. The question for decision concerns the correct method of ascertaining the full amount of the profits or gains of the trade of a year. Stated more narrowly, the question for determination is the correct method of ascertaining the value of stocks of footwear held by the taxpayer at January 1, 1959, and December 31, 1959, the opening and closing dates of the accounting period forming the basis of assessment. Stated yet more narrowly, the question for determination is what is the market value to be considered in the present case in applying the time-honoured formula under which, for income tax purposes, in valuing stock-in-hand at the close of an accounting period (and consequently at the opening of the next accounting period) such stock is to be brou...
indra Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR559(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J. 1. This last desperate attempt of the department to rope in an amount which has apparently escaped assessment must also be held to have failed. The petitioner is an Indian company dealing in shares. In its return for the assessment year 1959-60 it claimed a loss of Rs. 2,41,472 in respect of its share dealing business. The shares, on the sale of which the loss was claimed, included 1,393 bonus shares of Hastings Mills Ltd. which the assessee had valued in its books at the face value of Rs. 100 each. The assessment for that year was made by the first respondent herein under Section 23(5) of the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922, disallowing the claim for the said loss of Rs. 2,41,472 on the ground that the said loss did not arise in the normal course of the assessee's business. On the assessee's appeal from the said assessment order, by his order dated the 11th December 1964, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the entire claim for loss of Rs. 2,41,472 on the ground th...
Pran Krishna Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal411
ORDERK.L. Roy, J. 1. The petitioner, Pran Krishna Chatterjee, was born on December 19, 1909 and entered service under the Bengal Nagpur Railway Limited on April 7, 1930 as Clerk Grade II and was confirmed in that post on April 7, 1931. In October 1944, the said Bengal Nagpur Railway was taken over by the State, and at present is, designated as the South Eastern Railway. On April 5, 1956 the petitioner was promoted to the post of a Clerk Grade I in the said Railway Administration. The petitioner passed the Appendix IIA and IIIA Examinations held in December 1957 and on August 6, 1959 was promoted to the post of a Junior Inspector of Station Accounts (hereinafter referred to as T. I. A.). He was provisionally confirmed as a Senior T. I. A. in April 1965 and finally confirmed in that post on August 29, 1966.2. By a notification in the South Eastern Railway Gazette No. 3 dated the 1st February 1967, a list of the employees of the said Railway due to retire during the calendar year 1967 was...
P.K. Trading Company Vs. Income-tax Officer, k Ward
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR427(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. This rule challenges the validity of certain notices issued by the-respondent-income-tax Officer on the Union Bank of India Ltd., respondent No. 4, and Messrs. Andrew Yule & Company Ltd., respondent No. 5, directing-them to pay to the respondent-Income-tax Officer any amount due from them or held by them for or on account of the petitioner to meet the tax liability of a firm called Messrs. Dunichand Sons & Company. The rule was issued on the 30th April, 1968, calling upon the respondents, the Income-tax Officer, 'K' Ward, District 1(1), Calcutta, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III, Calcutta, and the Union of India to show cause why the aforesaid notices should not be quashed, and the said respondents restrained from giving any effect to the impugned notices.2. The facts as alleged in the petition are shortly as follows: Under a deed of partnership dated the 24th July, 1960, and registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, one Bimala Devi Ra...
Indian Tea Planters' Association Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR322(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It relates to the assessment years 1948-49 to 1950-51 and 1954-55, 1955-56, 1957-58 to 1959-60. The relevant accounting years are the calendar years 1947 to 1949, 1953 to 1954 and 1956 to 1958, respectively.2. The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Its membership is restricted under its rules to 'all tea companies under Indian management and Indian proprietors owning tea estates'. The annual subscription, according to the statement of the case, is payable by members on the basis of the acreage under tea (Rule 21) and any member can secede from the association after giving three calendar months' notice to the secretary (Rule 22). The statement of the case says further that this annual subscription has not been taxed.3. The objects of the association described in Rule 3 are as follows :(a) To cultivate and keep up a spirit of fellow-feeling and ...
Sisir Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Kanyalal Jhewar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal87,74CWN469
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. The above two appeals arise out of the same proceeding under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an execution sale. First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 255 of 1964 is by the decree-holders and the other First Miscellaneous Appeal, namely. No. 264 of 1964, is by the auction-purchaser.2. The property in question, namely, Premises Nos. 1 and 2 (now No. 1) Nityadhon Mukheriee Road, Howrah, belonged to the Sils (sic) in superior interest, under whom respondent No. 1 and/ or his predecessor was the lessee under a lease, dated October 6, 1920, for a period of fifty years, expiring in August 16, 1970. The appellants were sub-lessees in respect of the said property. In or about the year 1957, the appellants instituted a suit (Title Suit No. 104 of 1957 of the First Court of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah) for specific performance of a contract of renewal of the sub-lease. That suit was decreed on July 6, 1960. with costs. The said decree, including ...
Mahabir Prosad Poddar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR343(Cal)
T.K. Basu, J.1. The petitioner, Mahabir Prosad Poddar, is the sole proprietor of (1) New Bengal Syndicate, (2) Indian Agency, (3) Bharat Kala Mandir. The petitioner has his office at premises No. 62, Bentinck Street, Calcutta, his residence at premises No. 14/1, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, and he also has a chamber at 3, Bysak Dighi Lane.2. On the 30th August, 1965, several officers of the income-tax department entered the office of the petitioner at 62, Bentinck Street, his chamberat 3, Bysak Dighi Lane, and his residence at 14/1, Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, armed with warrants of authorisation issued under the provisions of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). After a prolonged search of the different premises, the officers seized a large number of books, documents and papers belonging to the petitioner.3. Some of the seized documents and papers were returned to the petitioner on the 3rd February, 1966, some others were return...
Manik Chand Nahata Vs. Income-tax Officer, k Ward and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR204(Cal)
T.K. Basu, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner, Manik Chand Nahata, challenges a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment year 1949-50. It appears that two notices in identical terms for the same assessment year had been issued, one on the 5th March, 1966, and the other on the 8th March, 1966. 2. At the time, the rule nisi was obtained, no reasons had been disclosed by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the impugned notices. The original petition contains the usual grounds of challenge stating that the conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act had not been satisfied. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Sebabrata Saha, the Income-tax Officer, 'K' Ward, District III(2), Calcutta, and affirmed on the 28th July, 1966, it is stated that the proceedings for reassessment for the assessment year 1949-50 was started against the petitioner on r...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›