Kolkata Court November 1976 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Susanta Kumar Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ460Cal
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India and is directed against the judgment of A.K. Mukherjea, J. discharging the Rule obtained by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The respondent Susahta Mukherjee is the Zonal Public Relation Officer in the Calcutta Zonal Office of the Food Corporation of India. He had been to Switzerland on July 16, 1974 in connection with the works of some relief and religious organisation. On July 27, 1974 he was arrested by a Swiss police and was detained in a place known as 'Mal'. On July 31 1974 he was produced before a Municipal Magistrate, Lausanne, Switzerland, and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of eight days including the period of detention of five days on a charge of committing repeated thefts. After serving the sentence of imprisonment he returned to Calcutta on August 4, 1974 and resumed his duties on the next day. it has been alleged by him tha...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Atwal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1976
Reported in: [1979]117ITR171(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the questions referred to this court are as follows:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the I. T. Act, 1961, could be imposed ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the period of the default for which the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is to be imposed should start from the date on which the return of income became due under Section 139(1) of the Act?'2. The assessee is a registered firm. The reference relates to the assessment year 1964-65.3. For this assessment year, the return of income was due to be filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the 1961 Act by the 30th June, 1964. A notice under Section 139(2) was served on the 13th July, 1964, according to which the return was due to be filed in August, 1964.4. The return of income was filed only on the 27th October, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sandersons and Morgans Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward, District Iii(1) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR954(Cal)
BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK J. - This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji on the 23rd of December, 1971 [Sandersons & Morgans v. Income-tax Officer : [1973]87ITR270(Cal) ] in an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the said judgment and order the writ petition was dismissed and the rule discharged.The facts of this case have been set out in detail in the judgment appealed from and it is not necessary to set out all these facts herein. For the purpose of our decision herein it would be sufficient to set out only some of the material facts of this case.The appellant before us is a firm of solicitors. This is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. This firm has been continuously carrying on profession as solicitors for a number of years. Usually, from time to time, a partnership agreement was executed by and between these partners. We are concerned with the accounting year/previous year 1963, and as...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Kumar Chakraborty and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal73
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The petitioners state that they took raiyati settlement of lands mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition from the recorded landlords Kartick Chandra Shawoo and Tarit Kumar Ballav. The particulars of the lands have been mentioned in the petition and it is not necessary for the present purpose to refer to the said particulars. As the landlords' right had vested in the State of West Bengal, the petitioners' estate were recorded as raiyati in the current settlement record in respect of said lands mentioned in the petition end a notice under Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 was served on the landlords and the said landlords had filed an objection, petition on the ground that the property in question was tank fishery right and as such excluded from the operation of the Act, that they had submitted requisite returns for the lands in question to keep these in khas. On the 4th of December, 1967 the Revenue Officer specially empowered unde...
Tag this Judgment!Nitya Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Sukhendu Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal130,(1977)ILR2Cal434
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. Theopposite party instituted a suit in theThird Court of Subordinate Judge, Ali-pore on March 24, 1975 registered as Title Suit No. 59 of 1975 for a decree of dissolution of partnership of the business called 'United Syndicate' carried on by the parties and for accounts, for appointment of a Commissioner for accounts and of Receiver for running partnership business, day to day administration thereof and for collection of assets. The allegations were in short that the defaulting partner, who is the defendant in the suit and the petitioner before us, had been committing serious breaches of agreement of partnership which had been set out in the paragraph 9 of the plaint. It was submitted that as by reason of his conduct it had not been practicable for the plaintiff to carry on the partnership business, it was just and equitable that the partnership should be dissolved.2. As the notice of the suit was served on the defendant he filed an application on 7th April, 197...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Enterprises Vs. Anup Kumar Daw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal209,81CWN400
S.K. Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against order No. 7 dated 11-9-1975 passed by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises. By the impugned order the petitioner's petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of C. P. Code was dismissed. The case in plaint is as follows :--2. The suit premises being flat No. 3 of 1st floor rear side of 184, Lenin Sarani, Calcutta hereinafter referred to as the said premises was taken on lease by Chattar Singh Dugar from Ajoy Krishna Daw on the basis of a registered lease-deed dated 22nd June, 1963 for a period of 22 years commencing from July 1, 1963 and expiring on June 30, 1965. Chattur Singh died leaving the opposite party No. 3 as his heir and legal representative. Ajoy Krishna also died leaving a will whereby the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed Executors and the probate of the said will was granted in their favour. It was stated that Chattur Singh and/or his heir defaulted...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wilh. Wilhelmsen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: [1978]115ITR10(Cal)
Deb, J.1. The following questions are involved in this reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to get depreciation allowance under Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules even in respect of ships which had formed part of the assessee's fleet for more than twenty years ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,280 made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on account of excess depreciation in respect of the vessel 'Tortugus' ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the enhancement of Rs. 97,547 to the total income made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on account of wrong deduction of unabsorbed depreciation allowed by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The assessee is a Norwegian shipping compan...
Tag this Judgment!Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR166(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, viz., Messrs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd., the assessment years involved are 1960-61 and 1961-62. The facts which have been found or are admitted may be shortly stated as follows:For the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee filed its return of income on the 17th November, 1962, showing a loss of Rs. 36,418. Similarly, for the assessment year 1961-62, the return of its income was filed on the 4th October, 1961, again declaring a loss of Rs. 24,314. The assessment proceedings were disposed of by the Income-tax Officer concerned on the 12th December, 1962, in the following manner : For the assessment year 1960-61 an order was made in the following language: 'The loss return filed on 17th November, 1960, is discussed with the A/R Sri A.B. Chowdhury. The return filed is beyond time. No action is necessary ; filed N.D.'2. For the assessment year 1961-62 the order r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J. Thomas and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR566(Cal)
Deb, J.1. The following question is involved in this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is eligible for development rebate under Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with reference to the lifts and the central air-conditioning plant in Nilhat House '2. The facts stated by the Tribunal may be briefly stated as follows :3. The assessee carries on business as a tea broker. It constructed a multi-storied building with lifts and central air-conditioning system. The assessee occupied certain portion of this building and let out its remaining portions to several tenants, who paid monthly rents and also separate sums for using the lifts and for enjoying the benefits of the air-conditioning system. 'The rental income was assessed in the hands of the assessee under Section 22 of the Act which was confirmed by the appellate authorities. The assessee claimed deductions for development rebate und...
Tag this Judgment!Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (In Voluntary Liquidation) and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas337(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Section 446 read with Section 518 of the Companies Act, 1956, for transfer of a suit from the Civil Judge, Agra, to this court being Miscellaneous Case No. 136 of 1975, filed by the petitioner against the respondent and also for injunction and other orders.2. The admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent being Miscellaneous Case No. 136 of 1976 (Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (in voluntary liquidation) v. Nagar Mahapalika, Agra) in the Civil Judges Court, Agra, inter alia, for the recovery of charge, for supplying electric energy in bulk being the amount of Rs. 5.43,386.56 together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum and other costs.3. The plaintiff-company after its undertaking was taken over by the U.P. State Electricity Board by purchase after the same was requisitioned by a letter dated the 4th of December, 1972, the company was paid a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 '...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »