Kolkata Court February 1976 Judgments
Dhirendra Nath Patra Das Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Range-ii
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: 82CWN117,[1978]112ITR233(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this application the petitioner challenges the assessments for 1972-73 and 1973-74 under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944. The main point seems to be that under the Agricultural Income-tax Act under Section 7, income is assessable on the basis of the amount of the agricultural income received by the assessee inthe previous year. Agricultural income has been defined to mean, inter alia, any income derived from land by agriculture. The assessee's contention is that as a result of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act his lands being cultivated by bargadars he had been in fact receiving only 25 per cent. of the total produce of the land and as such was liable to be taxed on that basis. It appears that the respondent, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, has proceeded on the basis of what was the income receivable by him, computing the same on the basis of the total land held by the assessee on the basis of reasonable yield from that land and thereupon ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. H. K. Paul and Brothers Pvt. Ltd. 3/3 Maharshri Debendra Road, Ca ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Cal)190
Sabysaschi Mukharj, J. - In the facts and circumstances of the case I direct the respondents to return the books of accounts seized within a period of ten weeks from this date and must complete the examination of the books within that time. For the aforesaid purpose the petitioner will render co-operation and will produce such other books, papers and documents that are in possession of the petitioner, if directed by the respondents by giving prior notice thereof. The petitioner however states that he can only produce books, papers and documents for period within six years prior to the date of te seizure. The other books, papers and documents are not in his possession. With this direction the Rule is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Shib Banerjee Properties and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: [1979]120ITR301(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. The following questions are involved in this reference under Section 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additions sustained to the income or loss disclosed in the statement of account represented the actual commercial profits for the purpose of Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 'D', Calcutta, was not justified in vacating the order under s, 23A in this case ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company to which Section 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, applies. In the assessment year 1961-62, with which we are concerned, the ITO rejected the loss claimed at Rs. 66,737 by the assessee arising out of constructional work of bridges and estimated the positive income of Rs. 65,182 at 20% gross profit on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sumitra Devi Agarwalla Vs. Sm. Sulekha Kundu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal196,(1976)1CompLJ333(Cal),80CWN365
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it is directed against the order dated October 1, 1975 of the learned Judge, 8th Bench,City Civil Court, Calcutta, dismissing the plaintiff's application for recording a compromise in adjustment of the suit under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract of lease dated November 2, 1973, for khas possession of the suit premises and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from letting out the suit premises to any person other than the plaintiff. The suit premises is the first floor of premises No. 310, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta. It is not, disputed that the defendant No. 1 Sm. Sulekha Kundu is the owner of the said premises. The defendant No. 2 Kestodas Kundu is the husband's elder brother of Sulekha Kundu. The plaintiff's cape is that on November 2, 1973, she entered into a contract of lease of the suit premises with ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of West Bengal Vs. L.M. Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal406
Deb, J. 1. This appeal is directedagainst the judgment and order dated June 5, 1970 dismissing the application made by the appellant under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside of the award dated December 24, 1968, mentioned in the petition. 2. The respondent executed certain constructional work for the appellant under and in relation to the contract between them. Thereafter, disputes and differences arose between them regarding payment. Those disputes and differences were referred to the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement. 3. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on three fold grounds: (i), the application was barred by limitation; (ii), there was no error on the face of the award; and (iii), there was no merits in the charge of bias and legal misconduct levelled against the arbitrator. 4. The argument before us was solely confined to Rs. 1,63,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- awarded in favour of the respondent, ap...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Jhunjhunwala Vs. Punjab National Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal280
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This is an application under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, for an order upon the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Lilooah Branch at Howrah to supply a certified copy of the entries in respect of the account of Messrs. Thakurdas Sureka of 172, J. N. Mukherjee Road, Howrah, for a particular period so that the same might be utilised as a piece of evidence in the trial of this suit which is continuing before this Court now.2. Messrs. Thakurdas Sureka is a firm but neither this firm nor any of the partners hereof are parties to this proceeding. In course of this proceeding on or about 12th January, 1976 a similar application was moved ex parte for the production of the very same statement of account of this firm of Thakurdas Sureka and for the very same period as is being asked for now from the above bank. The said application was rejected by this Court because it asked for the production of the certified copy of the statement of account of a constituent w...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Mohan Bhandari Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR407(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The subject-matter of challenge in this application under article 226 of the Constitution is the notices issued on the 29th March, 1975, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1970-71 to 1973-74. The said notices have been issued on the petitioner, Rajinder Mohan Bhandari, the heir and legal representative of Prem Gopal Bhandari. It appears that on the 28th March, 1973, assessment orders were passed for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, on Prem Gopal Bhandari as the karta of a Hindu undivided family, the original returns were not filed and there was best judgment assessment. Thereupon the said best judgment assessments were set aside. Returns were filed by the Hindu undivided family. Upon the said returns the Income-tax Officer made protective assessment. The only income was income from house property. The impugned notices have been given to the legal heir and representative of Prem Gopal Bhandari on the bas...
Tag this Judgment!Chloride India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR38(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. On December 19, 1966, the Income-Officer, E-Ward, Companies District, Calcutta, made an assessment for the assessment year 1964-65 in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner is a public limited company. In making the said assessment the Income-tax Officer treated the petitioner as a company in which the public were not substantially interested and charged the rate of tax on that basis making an additional demand of Rs. 2,62,239. On appeal on May 4, 1970, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the petitioner was a company in which the public were substantially interested and the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions laid down under Section 2(18)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Pursuant to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on January 12, 1972, the Income-tax Officer revised the assessment and computed the amount refundable to the petitioner at Rs. 4,28,260.40. In making the computation, however, the Income-tax Officer refused to allow...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Agarwala and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1586
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an application in an appeal from an order dated January 19, 1976 passed by P. K. Banerjee, J. in the connected rule vacating the interim order obtained by the petitioners along with the issuance of rule. The petitioners appellants stated in their petition that in pursuance of a search warrant, their Locker No. 1677 in the Bank of India, Vivekananda Road Branch, Calcutta was searched by the respondent No. 4 on April 8, 1975 and ornaments were seized under the Customs Act, 1962 and Gold (Control) Act, 1968. It was stated that the said respondent wrongly described gold bangles seized as gold in shape of rod diced and rounded in the seizure list. The petitioners contended that the search and seizure were mala fide and without jurisdiction as there was no reasonable belief that the goods seized were liable to confiscation or that any goods or documents were secreted. There was no recording of reasons for the search and seizure in terms of Section 105 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Golam Kibria Molla Vs. Abdur Rouf Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal205
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. These two second appeals have been directed against the decisions in the first appeals reversing the judgments and the decrees passed in the original suits started by the plaintiff, Golam Kibria Molla.2. The plaintiff's case is that he is one of the co-sharers in respect of the, disputed tank in plot No. 1976 under khatian No. 1596 of Mouza Jujarsaha, P. S. Panchla in the District of Howrah. The allegation is that Joherannessa Bibi, a co-sharer of his, sold a portion of her share in the disputed tank to third party outsiders, Golam Kader, Sadeque Molla and Golam Kuddus. The said Joherannessa Bibi sold another portion of her share in the disputed tank to another set of outsiders, namely, Abdul Rauf, Abdul Kalam, Abdul Salam, Abdul Mannan and Abdul Hannan. When the defendants came to catch fish in the disputed tank, the plaintiff for the first time came to know about the sales and in presence of several persons he wanted to exercise the right of pre-emption by purch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »