Kolkata Court December 1976 Judgments
income-tax Officer, 'G' Ward and Ors. Vs. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR489(Cal)
Hazra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 10, 1974, Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. v. I.T.O. : [1978]113ITR510(Cal) , of this court in an application under article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants are Income-tax Officer, 'G' Ward, Comp. Dist. II, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal II. The respondent is M/s. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee-company'). The assessee-company is the owner of a colliery known as Selected Sample Colliery in Raniganj, District Burdwan.2. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice dated March 12, 1970, to the assessee-company for the assessment year 1961-62 and also issued two notices both dated November 6, 1970, for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1965-66 under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.'). The relevant accounting years of the assessee-company were years ending December 31,1960, December 31, 1962, and...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnupada Jana Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1344
A.P. Bhattacharya, J.1. These two revision petitions are directed against the order of a Magistrate drawing up a proceeding Under Section 107 of the Cr, P. C. and a common point of some importance has arisen in these rules. The petitioners, in whose favour the rules have been issued challenge the order of the learned Magistrate as not in accordance with law. The respective orders are alleged to be in violation of Section 107 and Section 111 (Old Section 112) of the Cr. P. C. Those proceedings are accordingly liable to be quashed. The rules are opposed and it is maintained that the proceedings in each case have been drawn up in due compliance of Section 107 and Section 111 (Old Section 112) of the Cr. P. C, The impugned orders are similar in both the rules. In Cr. Rev. No. 409 of 1974, the Magistrate passed an order on 15-3-1974 in the follownig manner :Draw proceeding Under Sections 107/117(3) of the Cr. P. C. (Old) against opposite party members to show cause as to why they should not...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathmall Kanodia and ors. Vs. Ramricklal Girdhardas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal346
A.N. Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by Ramendra Mohan Dutta. J. on the 20th of March 1975. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal may be briefly indicated.2. A suit was filed by the appellants as plaintiffs who happened to be the Trustees of a Trust known as Rai Bahadur Bissessurlal Motilal Halwasiya Trust for recovery of possession of premises No. 150B, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta. The defendants to the said suit were (1) Ramricklal Girdhardas, (2) Narsinghdas Haldia and (3) Naaz Cinema. The defendants were carrying on business in the said premises under the name and style of Naaz Cinema. The defendants also filed a suit against the Trustees and in the said suit the defendants had asked for a declaration that the defendants continued to be the tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of the said premises. Both the said suits were settled and terms of settlement were filed. It is necessary to set out the terms of settlement which were filed...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala Bala Sen Vs. Jatindra Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal205,81CWN471
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer dated 28/30-7-1973 whereby the application for reference filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in L. A. Case No. 3 of 1972-73 was held to be time barred. It appears that in theabove land acquisition case an Award was passed in respect of acquisition of various plots of land. The Award, as it appears from the record, contained provisions for payment to more than 900 persons interested and specific amounts were mentioned as payable to such persons. In the application for reference which was filed on 6-12-1972 it was stated that there has been joint Award in favour of the petitioner with other persons in respect of certain plots even though the said persons were not entitled to any amount as they had no right, title or interest in the lands acquired. Schedule of the lands was given in respect of which the Award In the above case was challenged. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!British Electrical and Pumps P. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1976
Reported in: 81CWN404,[1978]113ITR143(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukharji J., dated May 14, 1976, discharging the rule obtained by the petitioner. The facts relevant arc as follows : The petitioner, appellant (hereinafter referred to as ' the company ') duly filedits return along with its balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the assessment year 1969-70, showing an income of Rs. 2,61,307. D. K. Gupta, the Income-tax Officer, ' E ' Ward, Comp. Dist. I, Calcutta, by his order dated November 29, 1969, assessed the total income of the company for the said year under Section 143(3) at Rs. 3,13,059 disallowing various claims. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax by order dated January 6, 1970, revised the total income to Rs. 2,92,208. The company thereupon became entitled to a refund of Rs. 11,026.04 and the same was given effect to by the Income-tax Officer. The company preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against di...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Bejoy Kr. Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1503
Anil K. Sen, J.1.This reference Under Section 395(2) of the Cr. P. C., 1973 (thereinafter referred to as the new Code) by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta raises a question of law on which there has been a sharp difference of opinion between the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta, 4th Bench. The question involved is as to whether an offence Under Section 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session or not.2. The facts leading to the making of the reference may shortly be stated :On November 12, 1974 the police seized from the possession of Bijoy Kumar Chatterjee and Joydev Chatterjee (2nd party in this letter of reference) a huge quantity of various brands of medicines marked for physician's sample stocked by them for sale in violation of Rule 65(18) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. As a result the police submitted a charge-s...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Namita Dhar Vs. Dr. Amalendu Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal187
N.C. Mukherji, J. 1. This Rule arises on an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against an order striking out defence on defendant's failure to comply with an order for making further discovery and an order refusing to vacate the said order by re-consideration of the matter under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows :--The opposite party filed a Money Suit against the petitioner. After the petitioner filed written statement the opposite party filed an application for direction to make discovery of documents that might be relied on by the petitioner. The petitioner through her husband made discovery of documents in her possession or power on 21st of April, 1972 stating therein that the most important document had already been filed in Court. Thereafter on the application of the opposite party for further discovery of documents, an order was passed on June 29, 1972 directing the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhagirathi Devi Jalan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR534(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question under consideration is : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in authorising the Commissioner to pass an order under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after the period of limitation laid down in that section by directing him to dispose of the matter afresh ' 2. The relevant provisions of Section 33B run thus ; ' 33B. Power of Commissioner to revise Income-tax Officer's orders.- (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any-proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. General Textiles
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR727(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961, relates to the assessment of a registered firm. The firm donatedRs. 8,000 to a charitable trust and claimed rebate under Section 88 of theAct. The Income-tax Officer allowed the said claim. 2. The firm contended that the above rebate should also be granted to its partners. As the income-tax Officer rejected the said claim, the firm filed an appeal, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed it on the ground that it was not an appealable order. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal lay and the partners were eligible for relief under Section 88 of the Act. We are now concerned with the following questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Sections 246 and 247 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there could be an appeal by the firm in which the rebate as allowable under Section 88 in favour of the partners could be raised (2)...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Kumar Banerjee Vs. Panihati Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal246,81CWN453
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against order dated 20-7-1972 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 24-Parganas (North) as the Co-operative Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. It appears that there were certain disputes between the petitioner and others and the co-operative bank and an award was passed by a Board of Arbitrators in dispute case No. 342 of 1969-70 in respect of the said dispute. The award was made on 11-12-1971 and was communicated to the petitioner on 21-12-1971. The appeal petition against the award was filed on 16-2-1972. The appellate authority, the Co-operative Tribunal, was of the opinion that under Section 134 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940 read with the Fourth Schedule thereof an appeal was to be filed within a month from the date of communication of the award to the person aggrieved. As this appeal was filed out of time beyond one month from date of communication, it was bar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »