Kolkata Court June 1975 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.
Rama Devi Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1975
Reported in: [1979]117ITR256(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, arises in respect of the assessment year 1947-48. The assessee is alleged to be an association of persons consisting of one Rama Devi Agarwalla along with Asrafii Devi Agarwalla, Gini Devi Agarwalla, Bimala Devi Agarwalla and Chameli Devi Agarwalla.2. The facts as appearing from the statement of the case and the annexures thereto show that on the 8th August, 1945, the said five ladies purchased from one Regent Estate Ltd. half share in premises Nos. 31 and 32, Tincori Basu Lane and 38 and 39, Bhairab Dutt Lane, all in Salkia, Howrah, for a sum of Rs. 1,68,000. On the 2nd April, 1946, the said five ladies by a deed of conveyance sold their shares in the premises to one New India Building and Land Improvement Society Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 4,20,000 resulting in a surplus of Rs. 2,50,000 earned by them.3. On the 27th January, 1978, the ITO, Special Circle-Ill, Calcutta, issued a notice under Section 34(1)(a) o...
Batokristo Roy Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. H. Polesy and Co. (importers) Pvt. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal467
ORDERSalil Kumar Hazra, J. 1. Two petitions filed by Batokristo Roy Company (Private) Limited for setting aside two awards dated May 9, 1969 and July 19, 1969 by the Tribunal of Arbitration of Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry were assigned to me by the learned Chief Justice. The first petition was filed on July 30. 1970 for setting aside the award dated July 19, 1969. I shall deal with this petition first. The facts are shortly as follows : Batokristo Roy Company (Private) Ltd. (I shall shortly call Roy Co.) carries on business as importers, exporters and commission agents in jute and jute goods H. Polesy and Co. (Importers) Private Ltd., a Company incorporated in Australia (I shall shortly call Australian Co.) carries on business as importers and dealers in jute and jute goods. 2. On or about March 21, 1968 Roy Co. and Australian Co. entered into a contract whereby Australian Co agreed to buy from Roy Co. and Roy Co. agreed to sell to Australian Co. 200 bales of light wool pack...
The Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Section, Calcutta and ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal21,79CWN900
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. delivered on January 20, 1971. In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner. United India Minerals Ltd., which is the respondent in this appeal challenged a show-cause notice dated March 8, 1967 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Section. Calcutta, the appellant No. 1 herein. The petitioner also challenged the proceedings under the said notice.2. The United India Minerals Ltd. is a company which carries on business of nrning and exporting mica. In July and August. 1964, the company exported several cases of 'No. 6 Black Spatted Loose Mica Splittings' of the 1st and 2nd qualities to Italy by S. S. 'Malacca'. The goods were exported under four separate shipping bills. On February 4, 1964 the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports issued a Trade Notice whereby exports of some varities of Mica were prohibited and some varities were allowed to be expo...
Peter Alan Basil and anr. Vs. East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal182
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for ejectment.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited took a lease of the suit premises by a registered deed of lease dated July 20, 1951 for a term of forty years commencing from July 1, 1951 and ending on June 30, 1991 at a progressive rent starting from the rate of Rs. 800 per month and ending with the rate of Rupees 1,482 per month according to the English Calendar month, from Mr. Basil Aviet Basil, the sole trustee to the estate of the plaintiffs. The defendant agreed not to make any structural alterations or additions in or to the suit premises without the previous consent in writing of the lessors, that is, the plaintiffs. In terms of the said agreement, the plaintiffs gave their written consent for construction of some structures on the suit premises by the defendant in accordance with two plans submitted by it on November 25, 1951 and...
Asstt. Collr. of Cus. (Tech. Cus. Div.) Vs. Bhimraj Banshidhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1975
Reported in: 1999(110)ELT524(Cal)
ORDERSankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of P.K. Banerjee, J. delivered on September 25,1972. In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, there were two petitioners before P.K. Banerjee, J., namely, -(1) Messrs Bhimraj Banshidhar and (2) Messrs Orient Finance Corporation. Both the petitioners were registered partnership firm. Messrs Bhimraj Banshidhar purchased a Hindusthan Ambassador car bearing registration number WBB 4379. The car was also registered in the name of Bhimraj Ban-shidar. On February 14, 1962, there was an agreement in writing between Orient Finance Corporation and Ram Krishna Arora whereby the Corporation let out the car on hire to Ram Krishna Arora upon terms and conditions agreed between the owners and the hirer. One of the conditions of this agreement was that the Respondent No. 4, Ram Krishna Arora would not use the car or permit it to be used in contravention of any statute and regulations for the time being in force or other...
Nirmala Bala Ghosh and ors. Vs. Balai Chand Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal404
Sen Gupta, J. 1. The application for amendment of the plaint filed by Balaichand Ghosh plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is before us for consideration. The said prayer has strenuously been contested by the defendants-appellants. 2. To understand the point in question a short history of the case may be stated :-- The applicant Balai Chand filed Title Suit No. 68 of 1956 in the 8th Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore for declaration that he is the owner of the property in suit, set out in schedules A to H of the plaint and thatostensible owners thereof were his benamdars. The said suit was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 2 of 1961 of the 4th Extra Court of the Addl. Dist. Judge at Alipore. That was the suit by Balai Chand against his sons and daughters-in-law. It is sufficient for the purpose of consideration of this question to state that the properties described in the schedule were stated to have been acquired by the plaintiff in the name of the defendants on different dates. The plaintiff ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramsevak Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1975
Reported in: [1977]110ITR527(Cal)
Deb, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we are concerned with the following question of law :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer was entitled to recompute the business income of the assessee, the reassessment proceedings having been validly initiated to include property income that had escaped assessment '2. The statement of the case relates to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The assessees' income from house property was determined at Rs. 1,243 and Rs. 1,159, respectively, in these two assessment years by the previous tax officer and with regard to the assessees' income from business, in view of the profit-sharing agreement between the assessees and their employees, it was determined at Rs. 8,139 for the assessment year 1959-60 and out of Rs. 25,045 it was determined at Rs. 12,522 for the assessment year 1960-6...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›