Kolkata Court May 1973 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.
Gold Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR121(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this case under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a familiar question has been referred to this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss of Rs. 36,035 incurred by the assessee-company on sale of preference shares of S. K. G. Sugar Co. Ltd. and Bengal Jute Co. Ltd. was a loss of capital nature ?'The year in question is the assessment year 1959-60 for which the previous year is the year ending 31st March, 1959. For that year a return was filed showing a total income of Rs. 20,063. The assessee-company is a dealer in shares.2. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed deduction on account of loss of Rs. 36,035 consisting of alleged loss of Rs. 26,565 on sale of 1,000 preference B shares of S. K. G. Sugar Co, Ltd. and of loss of Rs. 9,470 on sale of 250 preference shares of Bengal Jute Co. Ltd. The Income-tax Officer found that 1,000 shares of S. K. G. Sugar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raghunath Pr. Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR316(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question has been referred to this Court:' Whether the order of the Tribunal in annexures ' C-l ' and ' C-2 ' constitute 'information' within the meaning of Section 34(1)(b) so as to justify the assessment in this case being reopened ?'The assessee is an individual. The assesses carried on business in hessian. The reference relates to the assessment year 1956-57, the relevant year being calendar year 1955. In the hessian business, there were two transactions in one of which the assessee got a profit of Rs. 1,83,062 while in another he sustained a loss of Rs. 2,71,919. The net result of these transactions was a loss of Rs. 88,857 which was shown as such in the profit and loss account. In the course of the assessment proceedings dealing with this claim for allowing this loss, the Income-tax Officer wrote a letterto the assessee on 10th November, 1960, and which contained stat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1973
Reported in: 78CWN255,[1974]94ITR73(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question has been referred to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the electrolysis plant set up by the assessee-company was a new industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 15C of the Indian Income-taxAct, 1922, and as such the necessary relief under that section was admissible to the assessee 'The reference arises in respect of the assessment year 1959-60, The assessee-company owns a paper mill and manufactures paper and sells it in the market. In the previous year relevant to the present assessment year it had set up an electrolysis plant for the purpose of manufacturing caustic soda which is an essential chemical for use in the process of manufacture of paper. The assessee-company obtained a separate licence for the manufacture of caustic soda and the plant was housed in a separate building. In assessing the company for the...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kamal Kumar Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal231,78CWN154
Deb, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the decree for Rs. 1,44.549.87 passed in Suit No. 2566 of 1947 of this Court. The Trial Court directed the appellant, who was the third defendant, to pay the full costs of the suit to the respondent Mr. Goswami who brought that action and half cost to the respondents 2 and 3 who were the other defendants in the Court below.2. The Indian Tea Association is an incorporated association of members. The respondents 2 and 3 are the members of this Association. Mr. Goswami used to act as a contractor under the Association.3. On September 3, 1947. Mr. Goswami filed the above suit against the Dominion of India and the other respondents on these averments made in ihe plaint. In 1944. the Association appointed him as a contractor to do excavation and earthwork for an aerodrome including the construction of drains in connection with Project known as Misamary Project in Assam. The Association agreed to pay him for those works at the rate which he was getti...
Hind Ceramics Limited Vs. Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC419(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the following question has been referred to this court:Whether, in absence of specific date being mentioned in the certificate of registration from which it is to be considered as valid as provided for in the form of the certificate, a transaction taking place prior to the date of granting its registration can be taken to have been covered by it 2. The petitioner in this case is Hind Ceramics Limited. The Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Charge, in making the assessment of the petitioner for the period from 12th November, 1957, to 2nd April, 1958, by his order dated 11th December, 1958, allowed the claim for deduction under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to the extent of Rs. 1,41,537.71 in respect of sales made to M/s. Sanitary Ware Distributors between 30th November, 1957 and 31st December, 1957, on the basis of certain declaration in form No...
Ram Krishna Tarafdar Vs. Nemai Krishna Tarafdar and ors. Overruled
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal173
A.K. Sinha, J.1. These three appeals are taken up together for the sake of convenience as they arise out of several execution proceedings started by some of the co-sharers for enforcement of the final decree based on an Award given by the Arbitrators effecting partition of joint family properties.2. The common case of all the parties briefly is that in or about 1945 a suit was filed by one Sunil Krishna Tarafdar one of the co-sharers against other co-sharers for partition of joint family properties including several businesses which was eventually referred to arbitration. On or about 16th April, 1951, the Arbitrators filed their Award effecting partition of all the properties including several businesses amongst five groups of co-sharers. On or about 22nd December, 1952, a final decree was passed in terms of the Award but it was actually drawn up, signed and sealed after about lapse of 16 years i.e. on or about 31-5-68. The material portion of relevant Award for the purpose of present ...
income-tax Officer and anr. Vs. National Rubber Manufacturers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR377(Cal)
B.C. Mitra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated August 25 and 28, 1972. The respondent made an application under article 226 of the Constitution for quashing a notice dated July 28, 1971, issued under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1964-65. The shares of the respondent which is an existing company are held amongst others by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zenith Assurance Co. Ltd., and British India General Insurance Corporation. A list of shareholders of the respondent for the relevant year, that is to say, for the period from January 1, 1963, to December 31, 1963, had been annexed to the petition. A similar list was filed before the Income-tax Officer at or before the time of assessment of the tax for the assessment year 1964-65, In assessing the respondent, the Income-tax Officer computed the total income of the respondent at Rs. 19,78,729 and treated the respondent as a co...
Chief Commercial Superintendent, South Eastern Railway Vs. Member, Boa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC171(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the Board of Revenue has referred the following question to this court:Whether, the petitioner-railway, in so far as it effects sales of unclaimed and unconnected goods under the provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Railways Act, is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ?2. The South Eastern Railway, at whose instance this reference has been made, disposes of unclaimed goods for consideration of money. On the 29th August, 1957, the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range Charge, Calcutta, issued a notice in form No. VI under Sections 11 and 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, South Eastern Railway, directing him to produce on 12th November, 1957, the books of accounts and other documents for the purpose of assessment of tax payable under the said Act in respect of the period of...
Mriganka Mohan Sur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1973
Reported in: 78CWN227,[1974]95ITR503(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference relates to the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56, 1957-58 and 1958-55 for which the relevant previous years were the financial years ending 31st March, 1954, 31st March, 1955, 31st March, 1957, and 31st March, 1958, respectively. For all these years the firs question referred to this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the house properties at 53A and 53B, Gariahata Road, Calcutta, was rightly included in the total income of the assessee under Section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ' 2. In appears that the said question had also been referred for the assessment year 1956-57 in Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1963. This court has answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. In view of the aforesaid decision in Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1963the question No. 1 has to be answer...
Clive Buildings (Calcutta) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR650(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, The reference arises out of the assessment for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The accounting years concerned are the two calendar years 1957 and 1958. The assessee is a public limited company. There is no dispute that the assessee is not a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of Section 23 A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The following are the figures on the basis of which the Income-tax Officer held that the dividends distributed by the company for the two years were less than the statutory percentage (which was 60% in this case) required under the provisions of Section 23A of the Act: 1958-591959-60 Rs.Rs.Total income determined3,05,1523,24,853Income-tax as assessed1,57,1531,67,299 1,47,9991,57,554Owner's share of municipal tax borne by the assessee but not allowed in the assessment 46,069 46,059 1,01,9301,11,495Dividends distrib...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »