Kolkata Court October 1974 Judgments
imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: [1978]111ITR614(Cal)
ORDER9. The assessee-company carries on business in sale of dye stuffs and chemicals in India. Besides, it receives income being interest, royalty, technical fees and dividends from the Indian Cos. For this year it has filed a return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 1,08,90,033. In response to the notice Under Section 143(2), Shri Gangadharan of the Co. was present. I have discussed the case with him.2. During the year of account the company received the following amounts as interest from I.C.I. (India) Pvt. Ltd. : (a) Rs. 5,50,000 being interest on the loan advanced by the assessee-company for the purpose of purchase of shares in M/s. Atic Industries Ltd. by I.C.I. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (b) Interest on current account : Rs. 43,624. (c) Rs. 9,62,515 being interest on the loan advanced for purchase of shares in Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. 10. The company has filed tax deduction certificates in respect of the above three items of interest issued by the paying compa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Sarala Debi Birla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR488(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference relates to a question involved in the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The relevant valuation dates were 31st March, 1964, and 31st March, 1965, respectively. The assessee had made a gift of Rs. 1,00,011 to her minor daughter, Kumari Manjushree Birla, on the 7th of October, 1959. Applying the provisions of Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Wealth-tax Officer had included the said amount in the net wealth of the assessee for the said two years. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended that the sum of Rs. 1,00,011 was exempt under the proviso to Section 4(1)(a) introduced by the Act 46 of 1964. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner negatived this contention and upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer on this point. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal contending that the sum was exempt from the levy of wealth-tax under the...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Industries Limited and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ293Cal
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an appeal from an order discharging the Rule in a writ petition by the appellant.2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging an order being Order No. 34 of the Judge, First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, dated the 17th of August, 1970. The Appellant which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is the proprietor of M/s. New Allenberry Works having its factory at the premises No. 62, Hazra Road, Calcutta which employed 300 Workmen in its factory at Hazra Road started Absenting themselves from their duties and from the 2nd week of November, 1967 without any prior leave application and sanction. There were also employees who did not join after their expiry of leave period and other employees were charge-sheeted and after Holding due enquiry on notice to them, they were dismissed. Some of the employees left the employment without notice and in these ways the employees contravened the relevant provisons of the certified stand...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Chameli Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal260,79CWN332
Mukherjea, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order passed by a learned Subordinate Judge granting maintenance pendente lite to a wife and her minor son on an application made by her for leave to sue as a pauper for maintenance. The main application is still pending. The questions of law raised on behalf of the husband are as follows :--(1) Is the Court competent to make an order for maintenance pendente lite onan application for leave to sue as a pauper before such leave is granted? (2) Can an order for maintenance pendente lite be made at all in a suit for maintenance where the rights of the parties are governed by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act? 2. To determine the first question it is necessary to consider some of the provisions of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure which relate to suits by paupers. Rule 2 enjoins that every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits and that it shall be signe...
Tag this Judgment!Hindusthan Mill Stores Supply Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1974
Reported in: [1979]116ITR681(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukhakji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the AAC was not justified in annulling the assessments for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 ?' 2. It appears that the assessee is a firm. We are concerned in this reference with two assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. Assessments for both the years were made on the assessee-firm in the status of unregistered firm onthe 31st March, 1965, and 31st March, 1966, respectively. The assessee's applications under Section 26A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, were rejected by separate orders. A number of grounds had been taken by the assessee in appeal against this assessment before the AAC, At the time of hearing of the appeal, however, an additional ground was taken contesting the validity of the assessments on the ground that since the ITO had ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manick Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR860(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1962-63. Manick Chandra Dey and others, hereinafter referred to as the assessee-firm, carried on the business of wholesale dealing in sale and purchase of rice. Prior to the assessment year 1962-63, Manick Chandra Dey had been carrying on this business but for finance as also proper management he constituted a partnership firm with two other persons by means of a deed of partnership dated the 14th April, 1961. The accounting year of the assessee-firm is the Bengali calendar year and the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63 started from the 14th April, 1961, The licence for carrying on the rice business was in the name of Manick Chandra Dey and even after the constitution of the assessee-firm the business was carried on by the assessee-firm during the relevant previous year under that very licence. The assessee-firm filed an application for registration under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arun General Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-1974
Reported in: [1977]110ITR286(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the loss incurred by the assessee by payment of Rs. 14,001 as compensation or damages for non-delivery of the part of the goods under the various contracts by way of difference on the basis of prevailing market price was deductible or allowable in computing the income of the assessee from business other than speculation ?' 2. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant previous year ending on 31st March, 19,64. The assessee duringthe relevant year claimed as deduction the total payment of Rs. 14,001 ,to various parties in respect of contracts for delivery of jute twine. It was claimed that on account of inability of the assessee to make full delivery of the goods in terms of the contract, the amounts wer...
Tag this Judgment!Roshanlal Poddar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1583
Ajay K. Basu, J.1. I had the opportunity of perusing the judgment of my learned brother Bhattacharya, J. and I agree with the same. But I would like to add a few words.2. Section 561A of the old Criminal Procedure Code i. e. the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked for the purpose of merely reviewing or rehearing of an appeal on alleged fresh grounds or fresh materials as in civil matters. Apart from the provisions of appeal to Supreme Court in certain cases, every order and judgment of this Hon'ble Court is deemed to be final. True, only for giving effect or for securing ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court, the High Court can invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction to correct its order and judgment which is 'shocking to the conscience' but certainly not as has been suggested here merely for the purpose of reviewing or reconsidering its own judgment for the alleged omissions or laches of the learned advocate who argued the appeal or on fr...
Tag this Judgment!Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-1974
Reported in: [1977]108ITR838(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we are concerned with the assessment year 1964-65. The relevant accounting year is the period which ended on the 31st March, 1964. One of the contentions that arose in the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 1964-65 was that the revenue authorities were wrong in not directing the carry forward of the loss sustained in relation to that year. It appears that the return for that year was filed on the 3rd October, 1964, showing a loss of Rs. 15,890. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment and determined the loss at Rs. 8,387. He did not allow the carry forward of the loss, inter alia, holding :'Assessee will not get benefit of carry forward of loss as notice under Section 139(2) was not served and return showing loss was not filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'2. The assessee on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner u...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Dutta Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1524
C.N. Laik, Ag. C.J. 1. The above case has come up before us in the following circumstances:2. The matter was heard by R. Bhattacharya, J. and when it was taken up for delivery of judgment, Mr. Dinesh Chandra Roy. learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, brought to his Lordship's notice that there is a decision of the Division Bench of this Court on the issues involved in the revisional application. That case is Criminal Revision Case No. 237 of 1971, filed by Brahmanand Dayal and another and disposed of on 20th February, 1974, (reported in 1974 Cri LJ 1079 (Cal), by the Division Bench constituted by N.C. Talukdar and A. N. Banerjee, JJ.3. Thereafter the said judgment was considered by R. Bhattacharya. J. This will appear from R. Bhattacharya, J.'s order dated 27th August, 1974.4. Thereafter R. Bhattacharya, J., delivered his judgment on September 10, 1974. It appears from the said judgment that two points were urged before his Lordship. Mr. Roy referred before R. Bhattacharya, J....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »