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.
Ghasi Ram Sarma and anr. Vs. Sm. Durga Devi Kultia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal265
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. These two Rules arise out of two appellate orders dismissing the petitioners' applications under Section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in reversal of the order passed by the Rent Controller. The petitioners in the Rules are tenants under the same landlady, the opposite party No. 1 in the Rules, in respect of two portions of premises No. 10-A, Harm Sankar Lane, Calcutta. According to their case the monthly rent was inclusive of electric charges. The opposite parties disconnected the supply of electricity sometime in or about January, 1967 thereby committing an offence under Section 31 of the Act. The opposite parties pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the allegations against them. On a trial on evidence the Rent Controller found that rent was inclusive of electric charges and electric line was disconnected deliberately without any order from the authority or notice to the tenants. The opposite parties were accordingly found guilt...
M/S. N. G. Paul and Co., Gairkata, Distt. Jalpaiguri Vs. Income-tax Of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Cal)0269B
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is challenging an order dated 14th of September, 1973 passed under section 262 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, West, Bengal I. It appears that for the relevant assessment year namely, assessment year 1965-66 the petitioner had returned income for Rs. 6,581/-. The Income Tax Officer assessed the income at Rs. 2,15,719/-. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the Income by Rs. 1,24,963/-. In second appeal the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reduced the income by Rs. 41,610/- and as a result the reduced Income was 49,146/-. The difference of Rs. 42,000/- between the returned income and the assessed income was based on the following :1) Rs. 20,102/- trading account.2) Rs. 437/- being alleged expenses incurred by the assessee,and -3) being cash credit brought into the accounts introduced in the accounts of the assessee Rs. 22,026/-.2. Proce...
Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR802(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, initiated at the instance of the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 involves the question whether the assessee. The Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd., Calcutta, who manufactures and processes wire rods will be entitled to rebate allowed under the 1965 Finance Act and deduction allowed in the 1966 Finance Act incorporating Section 80E in the Income-tax Act, 1961, by reason of its products, namely, wire rods, coming within the definition of the item or an article or thing in item 1 of Part III of the 1965 Finance Act and under item 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The description of item 1 in both Part III of the 1965 Finance Act as also in the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows :'Iron and steel (Metal), ferro alloys and special steel.'2. The facts found and/or admitted as appearing in the statement of the case and the ann...
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR906(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. On the 9th January, 1973, a notice was issued under Section 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer, J. Ward, Companies District II, Calcutta, whereby he informed the petitioner that in the course of assessment proceedings before him for the assessment year 1970-71, it appeared to him that the assessee had furnished under Sub-section (2)/(3) of Section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under Section 212 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, estimates of advance tax payable by the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71, which the assessee knew or had reasons to believe to be untrue. The assessee was asked to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon the assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appeared that the petitioner had filed its estimate of advance tax under Section 212 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the 9th June, 1969. The income according to the said estimate was shown as Rs. 10,00,000. On 6th December, 1969, the asses...
i.C.i. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gift-tax Officer, b Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: 81CWN68,[1977]110ITR88(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. On the 29th March, 1967, a notice was issued to the petitioner I.C.I. (India) Private Ltd. by the Gift-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Companies Dist. IV, Calcutta, intimating that he had reason to believe that the gift made by the petitioner assessable to gift-tax for the assessment year 1962-63 had escaped assessment. The assessee was, therefore, required to file a return of the gift made by the assessee for the aforesaid assessment period. The petitioner replied on the 15th May, 1967, intimating to the Gift-tax Officer that it was unaware of any gift having escaped assessment to gift-tax and accordingly it submitted a nil return in the prescribed form. It is the validity of the said notice, which was issued under Section 16(1), of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, which is under challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to appreciate this challenge it is necessary to refer to certain facts. The petitioner is a subsidiary of the Imperial Che...
B.D. Khaitan Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR556(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the notice which is annexure 'E' to the present petition. The rule nisi was issued upon the challenge of the petitioner both against annexure ' D ' which is the notice of demand under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as well as annexure ' E ', which is the notice under Section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At the hearing of the application, no submissions were made regarding annexure ' D ' to the petition. The petitioner only confined his challenge to the notice issued under Section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated the 5th June, 1974. By the said notice the Income-tax Officer had intimated to the assessee that from his records it appeared that amounts of the sum of Rs. 18,880 for the assessment year 1955-56, of the sum of Rs. 15,203 for the assessment year 1957-58, and of the sum of Rs. 34,413 for the assessment year 1958-59, had remained outstanding....
Reform Flour Mills (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1976
Reported in: [1978]115ITR598(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The assessee. Reform Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.; Calcutta, has initiated this reference under Section 66(2) of the I.T, Act, 1922. As directed by this court, the Tribunal has referred the following question: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowances made in the year 1960-61, under Section 10(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1922, in respect of the sum of Rs. 12,000 being a part of the remuneration paid and a sum of Rs. 4,500 being the value of the free furnished accommodation provided for the managing director, Sri Mahabir Prasad Jatia, was right in law '2. The facts found and/or admitted in this reference are, inter alia, that the assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year involved is 1960-61. The corresponding previous year is the year ended 31st December, 1959. Under a resolution dated the 3rd October, 1959, Mahabir Prasad Jatia and G. D. Jatia were appointed the joint managing directors of the assessee with effect from t...
Sudhendu Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Bhupati Charan Chakraborty and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal267
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. This second appeal is by Sudhendu Nath Banerjee, the defendant No. 1 and several others who are the theirs and legal representatives of Snehalata Devi, the original defendant No. 2 who died at the appellate stage. Ehupati Charan Chakraborty, the plaintiff is the respondent. The original suit- was dismissed, but in the appeal before the appellate Court below, the plainttiff was successful and the suit was decreed.2. The plaintiff's case, to be very brief, is that he is the owner of the land and the building as described in the plaint schedule. The original defendants entered into the suit premises with leave and licence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff revoked the licence and asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises, but as the defendants failed to comply with the request, the suit was started for their eviction. The defendant No. 1 Sudhendu Nath, the husband of the defendant No. 2 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the material allegatio...
Suganchand Chandanmal Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR743(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated the March 30, 1970, in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 is the subject-matter of challenge. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. It was contended that there was no material for reopening. In answer to the rule nisi in the affidavit-in-opposition it was stated on behalf of the respondent that for the assessment year 1961-62 the firm had filed return of income on February 22, 1962, disclosing an income of Rs. 80,006. The income-tax assessment of the petitioner-firm for the assessment year 1961-62 was completed on March 28, 1962, on a total income of Rs. 83,649 in the status of a registered firm. The partners of the said firm at the relevant time were Sugan Chand Patwari, Chandanmull Agarwalla, Hulasi Debi and Rukmini Debi. On October 16, 1965, all the partners of the petitioner-firm filed disclosure petitions under Section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act before the ...
Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, C-ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR253(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. I am concerned in this application withthe validity of the notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961,issued on 15th November, 1971. The notice relates to the assessment year1963-64, the relevant accounting year for which ended on 31st March, 1963,The petitioner was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961, in which the petitioner's total income was computed at Rs. 96,03,460.The petitioner is a public limited company and carries on business, interalia, of manufacturing textile goods and chemical products. During theperiod relevant for the assessment year 1960-61, the petitioner had set up anew unit for manufacturing, inter alia, soda ash, caustic soda and otherchemicals at Porbandar in Saurashtra. In the order of assessment for theassessment year 1963-64, the Income-tax Officer had allowed to thepetitioner relief under Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood inthe relevant year in respect of the said chemical unit set up a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »