Kolkata Court July 1974 Judgments
Anantapur Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1974
Reported in: (1975)1CompLJ240(Cal),[1979]116ITR851(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the extra shift allowance on machinery worked triple shift should be calculated with reference to the actual number of days each item of machinery had been put to use and not on the number of days the concern had worked in the previous year in view of Section 32 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the Rules thereunder ?'2. The facts of the case have been set out in the statement of the case and may be briefly stated. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of yarn. The assessment year in question is 1964-65, the previous year in respect of which ended on December 31, 1963. For this assessment year the assessee, in addition to its claim for a sum of Rs. 3,19,914 as normal depreciation on machinery, also claimed an equal amount as extra shift allowance o...
Tag this Judgment!A.J. Tulloch Vs. M.P. Tulloch and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal243,79CWN157
Sudhamay Basu, J. 1. The petitioner has come up before this Court for a decree dissolving his marriage with the respondent, Maxine Patrica Tulloch. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was married with the respondent on the 2nd of July, 1970, according to the Roman Catholic rites. A certificate extract from the register of marriages is annexed to the petition. It is alleged further that the petitioner and tho respondent last resided together at 83, Park Street, Calcutta at the home of the petitioner's sister between 1st of February and the 8th of February, 1971. The petitioner acknowledges the paternity of a child born to tha respondent on the 7th of June, 1972. It is stated that in a previous suit filed by the petitioner in this Court adecree was passed ex parte on 21st of April, 1971 but the same was later on set aside. It transpires that an appeal from the same has since been disposed of against the petitioner. The petitioners case is that the respondent was living in adulte...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Ballav Saha Vs. Sm. Maleka Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal315
A.K. Sinha, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by one of the claimant petitioners in an apportionment case started before the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal a connection with acquisition of certain plots and the consequential award made thereon by the Collector.2. What happened was that the opposite parties made an application for reference after the award was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) for apportionment of the award made in favour of the present petitioner although no award was made in their favour. Their claim was that they are entitled to 39/64th share in the acquired plots and at least a sum of Rs. 15,000/- out of the total compensation should have been awarded by the Collector in their favour. This application, it appears, under Section 18, was followed by another application by the same petitioners-claimants for withdrawal of the application for reference. What the Collector did was that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Banga Luxmi Hosiery Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR644(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this combined reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we are concerned with the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63. It appears that for the assessment year 1961-62 the income returned was Rs. 2,684. The income that was assessed to tax, however, amounted to Rs. 4,524. For the assessment year 1962-63 the incomereturned by the assessee was Rs. 12,655, but the income assessed to tax was Rs. 23,034. It appears that the income was assessed at higher figures than the income returned because a sum of Rs. 7,500 in the first year arid a sum of Rs. 9,000 in the second year had been added to the profits disclosed as per books by the assessee on an estimate of the profits made under the proviso to Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 and under Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1962-63. It appears that th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Electrical Industries (India ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR844(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we are concerned with the assessment for the assessment year 1962-63, for which the relevant previous year ended on the 31st October, 1961. The assessee, Messrs. Associated Electrical Industries ., is a company incorporated in India and is a 100 per cent. subsidiary of another company known as Associated Electrical Industries (India) Ltd. There was an amalgamation of the two companies approved by an order of the High Court on the 7th September, 1965. We are, however, dealing with a period when the two companies were in existence separately and, therefore, these two companies have been treated as separate entities. The Associated Electrical Industries (India) Ltd., the holding company, was itself a subsidiary of a well-known foreign company known as Associated Electrical Industries, London. By virtue of an agreement between the Associated Electrical Industries (India) Private Ltd., hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta Vs. Calcutta Improve ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal87
Datta, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Anil Kumar Sen, J. dated March 23, 1973 discharging the rule obtained by the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the Board) against an award made by the Tribunal constituted under Section 70 of the Calcutta Improvement Act. 1911 for performing the functions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Board under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The acquisition of the lands in dispute was made under the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 which incorporates some provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 including Section 23(1) and (2) subject to modifications provided therein.2. By Section 74 (c) of the Calcutta Improvement (Amendment) Act. 1955 (West Bengal Act XXXII of 1955) which came in force on October 20, 1955 before sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the Act, the following sub-paragraph was inserted-'Para...
Tag this Judgment!Hiru Sepai Vs. Sultan Sepai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal1,79CWN1
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This Rule has been referred to a Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court. The circumstances which induced the learned Judges of the Division Bench 'to refer the Rule to the Full Bench is that there is a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court on the following point as formulated by them:-- 'Whether an application for preemption can be resisted by a party under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, who has ceased to be a co-sharer on the date of hearing of the application even though he was a co-sharer on the day the application was made.' The Division Bench decisions which are said to be conflicting on the point are Bidyut Baran De v. Nityananda Das, (1969) 73 Cal WN 654 and Karamali Sheikh v. Necher Ali Sheikh, in Civil Rule No. 1926 of 1968, disposed of on October 7, 1969 (Cal). It may be stated at the outset that the point referred to above has not been correctly formulated by the Division Bench which will appear from the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bimla Devi Vs. Aghore Chandra Mallick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal80,78CWN1045
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. In this reference the facts are that on the 5th January, 1965, Title Suit No. 83 of 1959 in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Alipore for the recovery of money due on a mortgage bond was decreed. The decree-holder thereafter started execution proceedings being Title Execution Case No. 2 of 1965. On August 4. 1965, the petitioner's first bid was not accepted. Two days later the petitioner's bid was accepted and the sale took place. The opposite party No. 1 on the 4th September, 1965, filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the First Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 51 of 1965. This Miscellaneous Case was dismissed for default on the 7th May, 1966 and the sale was confirmed on the 10th May, 1966. Theopposite party No. 1 filed an application on May 17, 1966, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reversing the order of dismissal for default made on the 7th M...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Dulal Mahato Vs. Hazari Lal Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal127,78CWN916
ORDERSudhamay Basu, J.1. This rule relates to an order of the District Judge at Alipore dated the 19th of December, 1973, refusing to grant an ad interim stay pending the hearing of the appeal.2. The petitioner's case is that he was permanent Headmaster of Mondal Para High School. His service was ap-proved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in 1968. Thereafter he was forced to resign on 21-1-1969. The respondent Sree H. L. Mondal, a special cadre teacher, was appointed Headmaster by the Managing Committee with effect from 16-8-1971 but the same was disapproved by the District Inspector of School by letters dated 12-6-1972 and 27-7-1972. The respondent, according to the petitioner, did not have the requisite qualification to be a Headmaster on 15-8-1971. After representation made by the petitioner the District Inspector of School wanted a report from the Secretary of the Managing Committee about the petitioner's resignation. After due enquiries the Director of Board of Inst...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudas Biswas Vs. Charu Panna Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1977Cal110,81CWN188
A.K. De, J.1. Charu Panna Seal started Ejectment Suit No. 1832 of 1958 on 8-10-1958 in the City Civil Court for eviction of Gurudas Biswas from Suite No. 1 on the first floor of premises No. 1, Jatindra Mohan Avenue.2. In the plaint she stated that she had terminated the tenancy of Gurudas by serving a 'notice to quit' on him on 13-8-1958 asking him to vacate the premises on the expiry of the last day of September, 1958. She further stated an the plaint that Gurudas had disentitled himself to protection from eviction having 'defaulted in the payment of rents for the suit premises from December, 1954'.3. Gurudas contested the suit filing a Written Statement. He denied that he was a defaulter in the payment of rents. He also denied receipt of the notice to quit and stated that the notice dated 13-8-1958 was illegal, insufficient and void and had not determined his tenancy under Charu Panna. Gurudas, the defendant, appeared in the suit on 12-3-1959 and on the same day filed a petition pra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »