Kolkata Court December 1975 Judgments
Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. the Hanuman Estates Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal328
S.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the tenant defendant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, striking out the defence of the defendant against delivery of possession under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff opposite party.2. The suit was instituted on July 16, 1973 on the allegation that the petitioner had failed and neglected to pay rent since June, 1970. The writ of summons was served in the suit upon the petitioner on June 3, 1974 and on July 17, 1974, the petitioner filed an application under Section 17 (2) of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the Court on September 4, 1974 and exactly a month thereafter the opposite party filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the Act, out of which the present Rule arises.3. Before the learned Chief Judge, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1975
Reported in: [1978]111ITR885(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of Messrs. Duncan Brothers & Co. Ltd., the assessee, the effect of a provision made for taxation by a limited company on the computation of its capital for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, has to be determined. The relevant assessment years are 1963-64 and 1964-65. The accounting years involved are the years ended 31st December, 1962, and the 3Ist December, 1963.2. The facts found and/or admitted in this reference may shortly be stated as follows : For the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee had claimed that in the computation of its capital a provision for taxation Of the amount of Rs. 16,48,888 should be treated either as a part of capital under the head 'other reserves' under Rule 1 or as a deduction from cost of investments in terms of Clause (ii) of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal224,80CWN278
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it arises out of a suit for mortgage.2. The plaintiff is the Life Insurance Corporation of India and its case is that the defendant is the sole and absolute owner of the properties described in Schedules B, B (1) and B (2) of the plaint. On June 14. 1955, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 65,000/- from the Rajasthan Insurance Company Limited by deposit of title deeds and, on that date, executed a promissory note for the said sum in favour of the said Insurance Company and a memorandum embodying the terms of the transaction specifically mentioning therein the deposit of title deeds and the loan of the said amount already taken by him. On December, 29, 1955, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 975/- in part payment of the interest and since then has paid nothing in spite of repeated demands. The assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of the said Insurance Company having been transferred to and veste...
Tag this Judgment!Premchand Sitanath Roy Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR751(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the notice under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Ill, for the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee submitted his return for the assessment year 1968-69 on the 14th of May, 1969. Therefore', under proviso (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 139, the petitioner was liable to pay penal interest for the period 1st of January, 1969, to 14th of May, 1969, at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of tax payable in the status of unregistered firm for the said assessment year. Under Sub-section (8) of Section 139, the Income-tax Officer had discretion to reduce or waive the interest payable in accordance with law and under conditions mentioned under Rule 117A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Income-tax Officer did not charge any interest in terms of Section 139(1) of the said Act. According to the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Appejay Steel Works Private Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR806(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is the notice dated the 10th February, 1971, issued under Section 274(2) read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Range-I, Calcutta. In the impugned notice the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Range-I, has stated as follows:'Whereas the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-V, Calcutta, has under Sub-section (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred your case to me in connection with the penalty proceedings under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 and whereas it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the assessment year 1964-65. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30 A.M. on February 24, 1971, and show caus...
Tag this Judgment!Dulal Chandra Bhar and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC576(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1965, passed by Banerjee, J., whereby the connected rule nisi obtained by the petitioner-appellants was discharged.2. The petitioners were served by respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Shyambazar Charge, with three notices under Section 9(3) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (West Bengal Act 4 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act, stating that the appellants, though liable to pay tax under the said Act, failed to get themselves registered and it was thought necessary to make an assessment under Section 9(3) to the best of judgment. The appellants were given an opportunity of being heard on 26th July, 1961, for periods 1362 B. S., 1363 B.S. and 1364 B.S. After hearing, the appellants were assessed to tax under the 1954 Act by the said respondent by three separate orders on 26th February, 1962, at Rs. 5,515.02, Rs. 12,487.11 and Rs. 10,861.35 for the said years respectively to...
Tag this Judgment!Dulal Chandra Bhar and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Shyambazar Cha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Cal)306
Salil Kumar Datta, J. - This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1965, passed by Banerjee, J., Whereby the connected rule nisi obtained by the petitioner-appellants was discharged.2. The petitioners were served by respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Shyambazar Charge, with three notices section 9 (3) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (West Bengal Act 4 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act, stating that the appellants, though liable to pay tax under the said Act, failed to get themselves registered and it was thought necessary to make an assessment under sec. 9(3) to the best of judgment. The appellants were given an opportunity of being heard on 26th July, 1961, for periods 1362 B.S., 1363 B.S. and 1364 B.S. After hearing, the appellants were assessed to tax under the 1954 Act by the said respondent by three separate orders on 26th February, 1962, at Rs. 5,515.02, Rs. 12,487.11 and Rs. 10,861.35 for the said years respectively totalling R...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Pranab Biswas Vs. Smt. Mrinmayee Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal156
R.K. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the petitioner husband Pranab Biswas and arises out of the judgment and order of dismissal passed by the Third Court of 'the Additional District Judge, Howrah, on 31-8-1971 in Mat. Suit No. 1 of 1970. 2. Stated in short the petitioner's case was that he entered into a negotiated marriage with the respondent No. 1 on or about the 10th of Falgun 1372 B.S., corresponding to the 22nd of February 1966. The marriage was solemnised according to the Hindu rites. Soon afterthe marriage the O. P. respondent No. 1 as bride went to the petitioner's house at Salkia and there she was found vomiting and ailing. On medical examination it was detected that she was pregnant at the time of marriage and had been carrying for about three or four months. The marriage had not been consumated between the parties and the petitioner got a rude shock on account of the unchastity of his spouse. The Respondent wife was first removed to a friend's house where she...
Tag this Judgment!Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas181(Cal),[1977]106ITR649(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67. The impugned notice was issued on the 25th February, 1975. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a foreign nonresident company. It has its registered office at Singapore. According to the petitioners the petitioner No. 1 did not have any place of business or establishment or connection with India Up to 1955, the petitioner No. 1 held all the shares of Messrs. Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. and since 1956 the petitioner No. 1 being Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. has been holding 51% shares in the said company. One Mr. B. N. Garg, petitioner No. 2, was appointed a director of the petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of looking after certain pending litigations according to the petitioners. On the 6th December, 1974, the petitioner No. 2 for and on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 was written to by the Income-tax Officer, Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Kashmir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: [1978]112ITR563(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessments for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, made under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were sought to be reopened by the notice dated the 29th of July, 1970, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said notice is the subject-matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a company. During the material times, the petitioner was acting as the managing agent of Messrs. Kashmir Ceramics Ltd. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the said Messrs. Kashmir Ceramics Ltd., dated the 24th of February, 1962. According to the agreement the petitioner was entitled to a remuneration of 10 per cent. of the net profit of the said Messrs. Kashmir Ceramics Ltd. It further appears that the said Messrs. Kashmir Ceramics Ltd. could not work from 1962-63 and mostly all the expenses incurred in construction were capitalised. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner did n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »