Kolkata Court April 1976 Judgments
income-tax Officer, Central and anr. Vs. Ghanshyamdas Jatia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR693(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1.This is an appeal by the revenue against the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukherjee J. dated February 25, 1971, whereby the rule obtained by the respondents was made absolute in part. The relevant facts are as follows :2. Kanailal Jatia, the original assessee, was assessed on September 28, 1954, on a total income of Rs. 87,269 for the assessment year 1945-46, under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and taxes were duly paid. The assessment was reopened under Section 34(1A) of the said Act and notice dated March 29, 1956, thereunder was served on him by affixation and there is no dispute over this. Kanailal Jatia died on January 19, 1958, and the assessment was completed ex parte on September 29, 1958, pursuant to the said notice. The legal heirs of Kanailal Jatia, the petitioners in the connected rule, who are the respondents before us, preferred an appeal against the said reassessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who by order dated July 11, 1961, s...
Tag this Judgment!SaifuddIn Ebrahimbhai Vadnagarwalla and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC463(Cal)
ORDERRamendra Mohan Dutta, J.1. In this application the main point which is involved is whether sales tax is liable to be exempted on 'rubberised cotton fabrics', of which the petitioner is a dealer, in respect of the period from January, 1970, till 6th April, 1975. In other words, whether 'rubberised cotton fabrics' would come within the meaning of 'cotton fabrics' as provided under item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act 1 of 1944), which has been referred to in the explanation to Rule 3(28)(a) and (b) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, to give the meaning of the expression 'cotton fabrics'. The said item 19 of the Act of 1944 provides as follows:19. Cotton fabrics. -- 'Cotton fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton, and include dhoties, sarees, chadars, bed-sheets, bed-spreads, counterpanes and table-cloths, but do not include any such fabrics -- (a) if it contains 40 per cent or more by weight o...
Tag this Judgment!Century Enka Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, d Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR909(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application I am concerned with the assessment made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year1972-73. The petitioner is a public limited company. For the aforesaid assessment year the petitioner claimed relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in view of the contentions urged in this application it is necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the assessment order dealing with this question. The said assessment order stated, inter alia, as follows: ' (vi) Relief Under Section 80J. The assessee claimed Rs. 49,69,033 under Section 80J for the year on the basis of average capital. For reasons discussed in the preceding year, the assessee's claim is disallowed. The claim is confined to Rs. 21,85,515 as under: Rs.Rs. 21,85,5151,49,56,675(a)Assets entitled to depreciation : Written down value of fixed assets as on 30-9-1970 as per last asstt. order3,73,26,323 (b)Assets not entitled to depreciation : Land as per balance-shee...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Somendra Nath Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ358Cal
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Masud, delivered on the 9th January, 1974. In an application by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution the learned trial Judge following the decision of Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherji in Siladitya De v. State of West Bengal. reported in 76 C.W.N. 444, had made the rile absolute.2. On 19th June, 1970, the respondent was selected for appointment as a Sub-Inspector in the Calcutta Police Force. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Calcutta, addressed a letter to him in which it was stated inter alia as follows:You have been provisionally selected for appointment as a Sub-Inspector in the Calcutta Police. If you are appointed to the post, then you have to undergo the prescribed course of training in the Police Training College, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas for period of one year.x x xAfter you successfully complete the course of training at the Police training College, you will have to under...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.C. Ghosal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR980(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, S. C. Ghosal, the following questions have been directed to be referred :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in Jaw in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in treating the hundi loans of the amount of Rs. 17,500 as the assessee's undisclosed income for the reasons as in the case of other hundi loans ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in placing on the department the onus of proving that it was the assessee's own money which was introduced in his business in the guise of bogus hundi loans ? 3. If the answer to question No. 2 be in the negative, then whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no justification for treating any of the hundi loans to be the assessee's undisclosed income and in deleting the whole of Rs. 45,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Mohan Ramkanai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1976
Reported in: [1976]37STC614(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th September, 1974, made in Civil Rule No. 396(W) of 1967, by M.M. Dutt, J., whereby the rule has been discharged.2. Chandra Mohan Ramkanai is a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the said firm) ; at all material times it carried on business mainly as textile dealers and partly on other items. There is also no dispute that the said firm is a registered dealer, having the Registration No. RJ/2307A.3. Pursuant to a tender for the supply of paddy straw to the Government Dairy Farm at Haringhata, the said firm, whose tender was accepted, had supplied about 50,000 quintals of paddy straw by installments during the year in question. The price of the said paddy straw was worth about Rs. 4,30,000 and from the bills as produced in the proceeding, it appears that they included a sum of Rs. 4,07,346.03 as delivery charges and carrying costs.4. Thereafter, a notice in form ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. East Coast Commercial Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1976
Reported in: [1978]115ITR633(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian LT, Act, 1922, was heard previously by a Division Bench of this court. Question No, 1 was answered against the revenue, whereas questions Nos. 2 and 3 were answered in its favour. The Commissioner then preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court on question No. 1. The Supreme Court allowed the said appeal by its judgment dated October 11, 1966, which is reported in CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. : [1967]63ITR449(SC) . The Supreme Court was, however, unable to answer question No. 1 and after setting aside the order under appeal directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case to this court to enable us to answer question No. 1. The Tribunal has submitted a supplementary statement of the case and hence this matter is now before us.2. The assessment years involved are 1950-51 and 1951-52. The assessee is a company. The question No. 1 is as follows :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of th...
Tag this Judgment!Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Vs. Third Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ197Cal
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Masud, J dated February 20, 1974 whereby the connected rule obtained by the employer-company was discharged.2. The proceedings arose out of an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant petitioner riled an application before the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for approval of the order of dismissal passed by it against respondent No. 2 who was a workman of the appellant. It was stated in the application that the workman was guilty of various misdeeds for which an explanation sheet was sent to him informing him that the employer -company proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The workman replied to the said notice denying the allegations of misconduct against him. The Enquiry Officer fixed July 8, 1971 for holding the enquiry as the explanation was considered not satisfactory. On the daie of hearing the workman could not be present as he was detain...
Tag this Judgment!Charmugaria Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR715(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference is at the instance of the assessee, Charmugaria Trading Co. Ltd. The assessment year involved is 1963-64, the relevant previous year being the accounting year ended on 30th June, 1972. The facts found or admitted as appearing from the statement of the case ami the annexures thereto may be briefly noted as follows :2. The assessee is a company in which admittedly the public are not substantially interested. For the assessment year in question the distributable surplus was Rs. 11,637 and the company declared a dividend of Rs. 7,200. It is the contention of the revenue that the assgssee ought to have distributed the statutory percentage of 90 per cent. of its distributable surplus inasmuch as it was an investment company within the meaning of Section 109(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The Income-tax Officer proceeded on the basis that the assessee was an investment company and levied additional super-tax under Section 104(1) of the Income-tax Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Shew Chandrai, a Firm Vs. Dominion of India Now the Union of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal37,80CWN633
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for recovery of the price of goods. 2. On June 29, 1948, the appellant alleged to be a dissolved partnership firm, booked 150 bales of piece goods at Wadi Bander on the G.I.P, Railway for carriage by the said railway and also by the E. N. Railway and for delivery of the same to the appellant at Shalimar. It was alleged that on July 17, 1948, the B. N. Railway delivered 140 bales of piece goods and failed and neglected to deliver the remaining 10 bales and/or lost the same and thereby caused loss and damage to the appellant. The appellant accordingly, claimed Rs. 10.183-4-6 on account of the value of 10 bales and Rupees 1,018-6-3 for loss of commission at the rate of 10 per cent of the value of the goods. The total amount claimed by the appellant is Rs. 11,202-4-9. It was alleged that the statutory notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »