Kolkata Court March 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.
Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer a-ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR349(Cal)
T.K. Basu, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. The petitioner-company has a subsidiary in India, viz., Messrs. Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Indian company'), which is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office at 57B, Free School Street, Calcutta.2. The Indian company does not maintain any research organisation in India. The petitioner-company maintains in the United Kingdom extensive technical research and similar departments which function as servicedepartments for the entire Dunlop organisation throughout the world. The expenses of these departments are allocated over all Dunlop factories partly on the basis of volume of production in each factory and partly on the basis of specific services rendered.3. Clause 5 of the inter-company agreement between the petitioner-company and the Indian company, which is relevant in this connection, provides as follows :' All costs and expenses in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of Sreeram-surajmull Charity T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR649(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, Actg. C.J.1. In this income-tax reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the main controversy is about the validity of a certain trust and its claim to exemption from tax. Two questions raised are as follows :' 1, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a valid trust came into existence under the deed of trust dated October 11, 1939 ? 2, If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the said trust was not a revocable trust within the meaning of Section 16(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and, as such, its income was exempt from tax under Section 4(3)(i) of the said Act ?' 2. The following facts give rise to the above questions. The assessee is a charitable and religious trust represented by the trustees of Sreeram Surajmull Charity Trust. This charitable and religious trust is proved by a deed dated October 11, 1939. It is a du...
Must. Hasnear Khatun Vs. Revenue Officer, Midnapore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal105,74CWN1020
ORDERP.K. Banerjee, J. 1. In this Rule the petitioner challenges the orders passed under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and the notice issued under Section 57 read with Section 44(2a) of the W. B. Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is the owner of 18.58 acres of agricultural lands in several mouzas within the Police Station Keshpur, District Midnapore. It is stated in the petition that apart from the said 18.58 acres of lands, she has no other lands. It is stated that total lands of the petitioner were within the ceiling limits and were retainable under Section 6(1) of the W. B. Estates Acquisition Act She did not file any B Form for retention of the said land and it is stated that she is not required to file any return in Form 'B' in view of Rule 4 (A) of the W. B. Estates Acquisition Rule. The properties described in Schedule A and other properties were bequeathed by the husband of the petitioner by Hibabul-Awa...
Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR442(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J. 1. By his application under Article 226 the petitioner prays lor writs quashing certain penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 274/271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for its alleged failure to comply with the notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the said Act, and for a further writ quashing a summons purported to have been issued under Section 131 of the said Act by the respondent-Income-tax Officer. The petitioner is a private limited company and for the assessment year 1961-62, it filed its return under Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on 1st November, 1962. The usual notice under Section 23(2) of the old Act, corresponding to Section 143(2) of the present Act, dated the 12th November, 1962, was served on the petitioner for compliance on the 3rd December, 1962. At the request of the petitioner time for compliance was extended periodically and in the meantime the petitioner's file was transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Companies District III, and ...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Commr. of I.T., W.B. Ii Vs. Jnana ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal417,74CWN710,[1970]77ITR782(Cal)
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule raises a short question.The opposite party became liable to payment of Income Tax under the Indian Income Tax-Act, 1922. For recovery of the same, proceedings were started under the Public Demands Recovery Act, as authorised by law. In the said proceedings, the opposite party was permitted to make payment of the dues under the certificate by instalments. These payments were being made from time to time and they were being accepted by the Certificate Officer, and, through him, by the Income Tax Department This state of things continued upto -14th August, 1957. Thereafter, it appears, the Proceedings for recovery were taken over by the Tax Recovery Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Refore him, also, a further instalment was paid, namely, of Rs. 500, on or about 6th October, 1967, and, thereafter, on or about 9th November, 1967, the balance, due under the above existing certificate, namely, Rs. 7042.33 p., appears to have been paid and the same was acc...
Shalimar Paints Ltd. Vs. the Third Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal90,(1971)IILLJ58Cal
ORDERT.K. Basu, J.1. The petitioner Shalimar Paints Limited is a Company engaged in the business of the manufacture and sale of paints, colour, varnish and oils.2. Prior to January, 1963, Messrs. Turner Morrison & Company were the Managing Agents of the petitioner. Under the terms of the Managing Agency Agreement, Turner Morrison & Company Limited was bound to provide and did provide office accommodation for the staff of the petitioner at premises Nos. 6, Lyons Range, Calcutta. After the termination of the Managing Agency Agreement with effect from the 1st January, 1963, Turner Morrison & Company Limited revoked the licence of the petitioner permitting them to occupy office accommodation at the said office. As a result thereof, the petitioner was compelled to vacate the said office accommodation on or about the 28th February, 1963. According to the petitioner, on the 1st March, 1963, it shifted its entire undertaking from 6, Lyons Range, Calcutta and moved its Head Office to Goabaria, ...
Bunge and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR93(Cal)
T.K. Basu, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and carries on business, inter alia, of exporting jute goods from India at 8, Old Court House Street, Calcutta.2. According to the petitioner, it has agents in various countries for the sale of its export goods. The said foreign agents are non-residents within the meaning of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner pays to its non-resident agents commission in respect of the sales made by them. Some of the non-resident agents act as agents-cum-buyers with the full knowledge and consent of the petitioner and some act as agents only. According to the petitioner, none of the said nonresident agents performs any activity or renders any services in India and their entire activities are in their own countries.3. For the previous year relating to the assessment year 1962-63, a sum of 74,793-5-3 became due and payable by the petitioner to its non-resident...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR207(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, Actg. C.J. 1. These are two income-tax references. One is Income-tax Reference No. 73 of 1964. The other is the Income-tax Reference No. 149 of 1964. They relate to the same parties. They raise common questions of fact and law. The Tribunal on its own referred one question under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, in the following terms :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in placing the burden of proof upon the department and excluding the income from Pakistan agricultural properties from the assessee's income ?'2. Thereafter, upon an order by this court, the Tribunal was directed to refer the following three other questions to this court under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act:' (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, had no application in the present case? (b) If the answer to question No. 1 (i.e., (...
Kerorimull and Company Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR270(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. The two Finance Acts of 1965 made legal what was formerly a sort of a gentleman's agreement under the so-called Tyagi Scheme for disclosure of escaped income by assessees. Under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, provision was made for declaration of income which had escaped assessment for a certain period and for the Commissioner of Income-tax to accept such disclosures and to accept income-tax on the amount of the income disclosed at certain rales in such instalments as he alight allow and to grant a certificate to every person who had made such a declaration and paid the tax setting forth the particulars of the amount declared, the amount of tax paid and the date of payment. Under Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, provision was made for disclosure of any income which has not been included in the disclosure made under Section 68 of the earlier Act and similar provisions for payment of tax and grant of certificate by the Commissioner.2. The petitioner is a ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panna Devi Saraogi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR728(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, Actg. C. J.1. In the statement of the case the three following questions are set out at the instance of the Commissioner of'. Income-tax for answer by this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 33B was vitiated as it was passed on an erroneous finding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction over the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 33B on the ground that the Commissioner had used materials against the assessee without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut the same ? If the answer to either of the above questions is in the negative, then, (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›