Kolkata Court May 1973 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Phipson and Company Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR549(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in holding that the amount provided by the assessee inits accounts for payment of pension to persons who had already retiredwas a debt owed by the assessee on the valuation date within the meaningof Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and was as such to be excluded fromthe net wealth of the assessee ' 2. The reference arises out of the wealth-tax assessment made on the assessee-company for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, the relevant valuation dates being the last day of the calendar years 1956, 1957 and 1958. In the course of assessment proceedings before the Wealth-tax Officer the assessee's representative claimed, inter alia, that the provisions for pension as shown on the liabilities side of the balance-sheet drawn as on the above relev...
Tag this Judgment!Chira Ranjan Das Vs. Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal119,78CWN285
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the Plaintiff-Petitioner and is directed against on order dated the 5th October, 1972 passed by Shri D. Dutta Gupta, Munsif, 5th Court, Alipore, District 24-Parganas rejecting the petitioner's prayer for ad interim injunction at that stage in conection with his application for injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P. C. in Title Suit No. 195 of 1972.2. The facts leading on to the Rule are rather chequered but can be put in a short compass. The case of the Plaintiff/Petitioner inter alia is that he was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the Engineering Department under the Electric Lamp . issued a letter dated the 27th March, 1972 stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff was transferred from the Engineering Department to the Packing Department (Lamp Factory) with effect from the 20th March, 1972 and was directed to report to the Factory Manager immediately on receipt of the letter; and that being aggrieved by...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotirmoyee Debi Vs. Assistant Settlement Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal486
ORDERDebiprosad Pal, J. 1. The petitioner was granted settlement of 17.23 acres of lands now recorded in R.S. Khatian Nos. 11243, 11244, 11245, and 11246 by Krishnanagar Raj Estate. After the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into effect, the petitioner became a tenant directly under the State in respect of the aforesaid lands and the said tenancy is alleged to have been recorded in the finally published R.S. Khatian Nos. 11243, 11244, 11245 and 11246. Sometime in June, 1968 a proceeding under Section 5-A of the Act was initiated for enquiring into the question as to whether the transfer of the lands in favour of the petitioner was a bona fide one. The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Krishnanagar on examination of the materials adduced before him held that the transfer in question was made before 5th May, 1953 and hence the said transfer did not come under the purview of Section 5-A of the Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajnagar Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR405(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference arises out of the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Section 49A and Explanation (ii) to Section 49D ofthe Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in deducting the amount of abatement allowable under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation with Pakistan from the amount of the Indian income-tax for the purpose of determination of the Indian rate of tax mentioned in Clause (b) of Section 49D(3) of the said Act '2. The assessee is a tea company. It, in the relevant years, had tea gardens in what was then known as East Pakistan, in respect of which agricultural income-tax was payable in Pakistan, The assessee's head office had been, however, located in Calcutta...
Tag this Judgment!Jwaladutt Jiwankumar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR183(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. IN this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act the following question has been referred to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in disposing of an appeal against an assessment under Section 16(5), the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should confine himself only to the 'materials on record at the time of assessment, i.e., the previous assessment order '2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1960-61. The relevant valuation date is 31st March, 1960. The assessee is an individual. A noticeunder Section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act was served on the assessee on the 20th August, 1960. No return was filed. There was no application for extension. A notice under Section 16(4) was issued fixing the case on the 24th February, 1961. The assessee applied lor adjournment.' No return was filed even thereafter and the Wealth-tax Officer made the assessment under Section 16(5) of...
Tag this Judgment!New Empire Hosiery Mills Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC21(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 21(2)(b) and (3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the following questions have been referred to this court:(1) Whether the Board of Revenue, West Bengal, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on an application for revision made before it can make an enhancement?(2) Does Rule 27A of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, apply to a best judgment assessment?2. In this case, it appears that as the dealer failed to produce books of account, etc., in respect of the assessment for the period from 1st July, 1957, to 16th July, 1957, and three quarters ended on Chaitra, 1364 B.S., under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as per direction of a notice in form C issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Manicktala Charge, he assessed the dealer on estimate to the best...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer, b Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR432(Cal)
Debiprosad Pal, J. 1. The petitioner in this application has challenged the notice dated 13th March, 1969, issued by the Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Siliguri, whereby he was called upon to furnish the annual return for the financial year 1967-68, under Section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner states that after the death of his father on 8th May, 1968, he as karta of the joint Hindu family of the deceased was managing the Bagdogra Tea Estate having its head office and principal place of business at 72, Girish Park North, Calcutta-6, and the garden at Bagdogra in the districtof Darjeeling. It is alleged that Bagdogra Tea Estate is a regular assessee under Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, District II(I), Calcutta, and has been assessed by the said Income-tax Officer up to the assessment year 1964-65. The petitioner received two notices dated 13th March, 1962, from the respondent No. 1, Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Siliguri, from whic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi Jalan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR35(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, three questions have been referred to this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the net assets of W. H. Harton & Co. Ltd. for the purpose of determining the break-up value of its shares the sum of Rs. 61,800 being the amount of proposed dividend should be allowed as a deduction ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee was not the owner of 32,440 shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd. ? (3) If the answer to the question No, 2 is in the negative, then whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of the shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd., only a sum of Rs. 1,63,200 should be included in the net wealth of the assessee in place of Rs. 4,69,894 ' 3. There is a slight mistake in question No. 2. The figure should be 22,4...
Tag this Judgment!Ujjal Chandra Ghose Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal124
B. C. Mitra, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated May 8, 1970. The appellant is the owner of premises Nos. 34/1/1A and 36C, Lake Road. The two premises formed one unit measuring about 9 kottahs 5 chhattacks and 34 square feet of land on which the appellant had constructed a three-storeyed building. He has kept open and vacant 4 kottahs and 8 chattacks of land on the eastern part of the property, for better enjoyment of the building and on this vacant land a lawn has been laid. To the east of the appellant's property is a school known as Kamala Balika Vidyalaya.2. On March 27, 1965 the respondent No. 1 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By this notification the respondent No. 1 proposed to acquire the entire property including the two premises mentioned above for the purpose of expansion of the Kamala Balika Vidyalaya.3. The appellant filed his objection under Section 5-A of the Act to ...
Tag this Judgment!Pankoj Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Manmatha Nath Vidyabhushan Bhattacharje ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal439
A.K. Sinha, J.1. The only question involved in the present appeal is whether the order rescinding the decree for specific performance of contract for sale of certain immovable properties originally passed in favour of the present appellant should be maintained.2. The present appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract for sale to him of immovable properties comprising of land structures at and for the price of Rs. 6,000/-. The suit was contested by the respondent and ultimately a decree for specific performance of the contract was passed in favour of the present appellant on condition that on plaintiff's depositing the balance of purchase money of Rs. 6,000/-, it is admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid in advance, within two months from the date of the decree the appellant would be entitled to get sale deed executed and registered in his favour in respect of the disputed property by the respondent and in default thereof, such sale deed would be executed and regis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »