Kolkata Court January 1976 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhadka Colliery Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: [1979]117ITR874(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with the question as to whether the assessee is eligible for adjustment of losses brought forward from the earlier years. The reference relates to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The preceding financial years are the previous years.2. The assessee is a company. The company carries on business in raising coal from mines taken on lease. It also derives income by acting as agent for purchase and sale of coal. The purchase of coal was regulated by permits and the permits were issued only to actual users. The company was a dealer and not a user of coal and, accordingly, it could not effect any purchase. In these circumstances, the company entered into commission agency transactions from which it earned commission. The said agency also enabled the company to sell coal to its customers.3. The company suffered losses in the accounting years 1958 to 1960, which were ascertained by the ITO after ...
Alipurduar Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: 80CWN404,[1978]112ITR878(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to assessment for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 under the Bangal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944. The petitioner is a company which carries on the business of manufacture and saleof tea. Under Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, where an assessee himself grows tea leaves and manufactures tea, 60% of the income and/or profit on sale during the relevant assessment year is taxable as representing agricultural income under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act and the balance representing income from manufacturing process of tea is taxable as business income under the Indian Income-tax Act. For the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Jalpaiguri, being respondent No. 1, passed two separate orders both dated 25th July, 1960, and computed the agricultural income of the petitioner-company at Rs. 3,71,128 and Rs. 97,844, respectively, for the said asses...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Calcutta Motor Dealers Association
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR744(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. The following questions are involved in this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the objects of the assessee-association were objects of general public utility and accordingly the assessee was entitled to exemption from tax in respect of all its activities under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income derived by the assessee from (a) membership roster advertisement, (b) member roster sale fees, (c) agents' authorisation fees, and (d) miscellaneous receipt, was income from business carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the assessee 3. If the answer to question No. 2 above is in the affirmative, whether the work in connection with the business was mainly carried on by beneficiaries of the assessee and accordingly the income derived from such activities was exempt f...
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR33(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 4th November, 1974, issued under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium utensils and articles. The petitioner has its factory at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The petitioner states that the petitioner is a company whose business consists of manufacture of aluminium articles as detailed in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to necessary rebate as contemplated by Paragraph F(1)(b)(ii)(a) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965. One of the main businesses of the petitioner consisted of export of aluminium utensils and articles and goods outside India. There was an order of assessment and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment for the asses...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›