Kolkata Court March 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.
Jitendra Nath Das Vs. Bijoy Lal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal478
R. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This is a second appeal by Jitendra Nath Das, the defendant of the original suit in which the plaintiff-respondent Bijoy Lal Das obtained a decree for eviction against the former in respect of the suit premises. An appeal was taken against that decision before the District Judge, but it was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant, a tenant in respect of the suit premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and obtained a decree for eviction of the defendant on the ground of arrears of rent. The learned Munsif of the trial court found that the defendant was in arrears of rent and that he was not entitled to get any protection. It was also found that ejectment notice was duly served upon the defendant through post by certificate of posting. In the appeal below, the learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the finding of the learned Munsif. Only one point was urged at the time of hearing of the appeal below regarding the service of ...
Vishan Swarup Agarwalla Vs. the Income-tax Officer, a Ward, Dist. 1(1) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Cal)296
Sabyasachi Mukharji J. - On the 4th of September, 1958 the petitioner, Vishan Swarup was assessed under section 23 (3) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 on a total income of Rs. 18,602/- for the assessment year 1955-56. By notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allegedly served on the petitioner on the 22nd of March, 1972 as well as on the 28th of March 1972 the said assessment under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the said reopening.2. The first question, is, whether the petitioner was served with notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The service of notice under section 148 is mandatory and is a condition precedent for the initiation of the re-assessment proceeding. The said service in view of the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be made as if it was a summons issued by a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Order 5, Rule 17 of the Code in order to be a valid service by affixation on the ground that the person...
Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR1041(Cal)
Masud, J.1. We have delivered a judgment in ITR No. 175 of 1970 [Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.--Since reported in : [1978]112ITR643(Cal) ] today, where we have held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company's entries in the balance-sheet as on 31st December, 1961, regarding the sum of 9,473 constituted a 'reserve' within the meaning of Section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the assessee-company is entitled to development rebate under Section 33 of the Act. In the present reference the same assessee for the same financial year has caused this reference under Section 256(1) of the said Act against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal where an alternative contention of the assessee has been rejectedby the Tribunal. The question of law referred to the court in a supplementary statement of case is as follows :' Whether the credit of a sum of 1,00,000 to the renewals and replacement account by debit to the appli...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1976
Reported in: 80CWN117,[1978]112ITR643(Cal)
Masud, J.1. The short point to be decided in this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is whether, on the facts of thiscase, the assessee is entitled to development rebate under Section 34(3)read with Section 33- of the said Act. The following question of law hasbeen raised :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entries in the balance-sheet as on 31st December, 1961, regarding the sum of 9,473 constituted a 'reserve' as contemplated by Section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to justify allowance of development rebate under Section 33 of that Act ?'2. Before the relevant portions of the balance-sheet are set out, it is necessary to discuss the material provisions of Section 34 of the said Act.'34. Conditions for depreciation allowance and development rebate.--(1) The deductions referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 32 shall be allowed only if the prescribed particulars have been furnished; and the deductions referred in Sect...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, d Bench ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR267(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in this application is the order dated 27th October, 1971, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Calcutta. In order to appreciate the questions involved in this application it would be relevant to refer to the facts in little detail. It appears that for the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee which is a limited company made a claim for allowance of certain remuneration and commission paid to two joint managing directors, Shri A. K. Das and Shrimati Sujata Saha. The Income-tax Officer in his assessment order observed that the joint managing directors were paid monthly salary of Rs. 1,500 per month and commission on sales in the case of A. K. Das at the rate of 10 per cent. and in the case of Shrimati Sujata Saha 1 1/2 per cent. on the sale. Dealing with the same the Income-tax Officer observed, inter alia, as follows :'The joint managing directors were paid the remuneration at the same rate in the immediately p...
The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Sm. Nayantara Law and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal242
Masud, J.1. This reference has arisen out of an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of Ray J., as his Lordship then was, dismissing the appellant's suit against the respondent for a declaration of charge on premises No. 79 Raja Naba Kissen Street, Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 24,442/15/0p., being the consolidated rates with interest due and payable by the respondent. During the hearing of the appeal before Sinha C. J. and myself a point of law arose for decision to the following effect:'Whether a mortgagee could release one of the mortgagors and his security and sue for realisation of the entire mortgage claim from the remaining securities.'It was held by a Bench decision of the Court presided over by B.K. Mukherjea, J., in Taran Roy v. Shyam Mondal, AIR 1942 Cal 226 that the mortgagor could not do so and if a mortgagor releases part of the security and proceeds against the other part, he can only get a decree for a proportionate amount. Having heard arguments of the parties,...
Jessop's Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Registrar of Co-operat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal309,80CWN917
ORDERA.N. Sen, J.1. An interesting question of some importance involving the interpretation of Section 86 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 arises for consideration in this writ proceeding.2. Jessop's Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a duly registered Society and as such is a body corporate. Ajit Narayan Sinha, the respondent No. 5 herein, is a member of the Society. Ajit Narayan Sinha disputed the validity of the notice dated 5th of May, 1975 for holding the annual general meeting dated 20th of May, 1975 of the Society, the proceedings of the said annual general meeting, re-constitution of the Managing Committee at the said meeting and the election of the office bearers of the Managing Committee on various grounds. He referred the disputes in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 86 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and he filed a plaint verified by him on the 19t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Co. L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR276(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company. The company owns a sugar mill at Gorakhpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It produces sugar in its mill. It sells and also exports sugar. It has adopted the mercantile system of accounting. The assessment year in both these references, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is 1961-62. The relevant previous year ended on October 31, 1960.2. The facts stated by the Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax Reference No, 231 of 1971 are briefly as follows :The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Control Order, was amended on September 23, 1958 (sic). Since the additional price payable by the company to the sellers of sugarcanes, who were the growers of sugarcanes, was not determined under Clause 3A(1) of the Control Order, the company made a provision for payment of Rs. 1,40,000 as additional price payable to them with regard to the purchases made by the company from 1st November, 1959, to 31st Octob...
Cushrow Russy Irani Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ160
ORDERA.N. Banerjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 26-12-75 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta condoning the delay for filing the petition of complaint under Section 372 read with Section 374 of the Companies Act. 1956 and also for quashing the proceeding taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. It appears that on 26-12-75 Registrar of Companies, West Bengal filed an application under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for condonation of the delay on the grounds stated therein. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before Whom the said application was filed recorded an order on the petition itself. The order runs as follows:Perused the petition. Heard the learned Advocates. It appears that in the present petition delay in filing the petition has been sufficiently explained and as the prosecution is in the interest of the State and on the ground of public policy the delay is condoned under Section 473 of the Code o...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Chinoy Chablani and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal467,80CWN819
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by Chinoy Chablani & Co., a firm carrying on business in Calcutta. The petitioner is the defendant in Suit No. 14 of 1975. The said suit was instituted by the Union of India as the first plaintiff and the Food Corporation of India as the second plaintiff against the petitioner. The said suit was instituted on or about the 14th of January, 1975, claiming a decree for Rs. 73,285/-. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is as follows:(a) 81,986 bags of Urea and 820 empty spare bags were shipped from Odessa in the U.S.S.R. to any port in India on a vessel 'S.S. SUDGA' under a bill of lading issued by one Black Sea Steamship Co., the owner of the said vessel,(b) The said Black Sea Steamship Co.. appears to be a concern of U.S.S.R.(c) With regard to the said shipment there was a total short-landing of Urea of 94.785 m. t. which occurred due to the negligence and/or wrongful acts of the shippers and/or its employees and/or its agents.(d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »