Kolkata Court July 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.
Ram Chandra Sarda Vs. Income-tax Officer, b Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR325(Cal)
1. The assessment of the petitioner, Ram Charidra Sarda for the assessment year 1963-64 was completed by the Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, District 1(1), Calcutta, on the 31st March, 1965. 2. On the same day, i.e., 31st March, 1965, the aforesaid Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with Section 271 thereof. This notice is material for our purpose and is set out hereinbelow:' NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 No. PW/R. 340/B. Income-tax Officer, Dt. I(I), Cal.Date: 31-3-1965 To Sri Ram Chandra Sarda, 4, Dayahatta Street, Calcutta. Whereas, in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 1963-64, it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your income or deliberately furnished Inaccurate particulars of such income and whereas the 'penalty proceedings have to be referred to the Inspecting Assistant' Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textile Machinery Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR428(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, C.J.1. This income-tax reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, refers the three following questions for determination by the court. The questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in holding that the steel foundry division was an industrial undertaking to which Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,applied?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the jute mill division set up by the assessee-company was an industrial undertaking to which Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applied?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for deduction of wealth-tax paid during the accounting year was admissible in computing the assessee's profits from its business ?' 2. We can straightaway dispose of the third question as we find it isalready covered by...
Sm. Gita Debi Bajoria Vs. Harish Chandra Saw Mill and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal202
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner against an order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge fixing the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees at Rs. 15,000/- and directing amendment of plaint and register accordingly and directing the petitioner-plaintiff to file deficit court fees within a certain time. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that certain documents were not binding on her and were null and void upon the footing that they were not documents, intelligently executed by her. The suit was valued in the plaint at Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs claiming that she was not obliged to make, in the circumstances, any prayer except for a declaration, as noted above, and she paid a court-fee of Rs. 20/- on the plaint, treating it as a declaratory suit. The above position was contested by the defendant but the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was of the view that the suit was one, governed by ...
Mahabir Prasad Jatia and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1970
Reported in: [1972]84ITR143(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J. 1. Two orders imposing penalties under Sections 271 and 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the petitioners in respect of the assessment year 1959-60 have been challenged in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Difficult questions as to the legality of the assessment made for that year and the penalties imposed under the 1961 Act in respect of the assessment year 1959-60, for which the return was alleged to have been filed before the 1961 Act came into operation, were canvassed during the course of the arguments but in the view I have taken it is not necessary for me to decide those questions. It is claimed in the petition that a partnership firm styled, Onkarmull Kanailall & Co., was incorporated some time in the year 1943 and registered under the Indian Partnership Act and at the material time the partners of the said firm were, (1) Kanailall Jatia, (2) Ghanshyamdass Jatia, (3) Mahabir Prosad Jatia, (4) Deokinandan Jatia, (5) Sreemohan Jatia, (6) Smt. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›