Kolkata Court June 1977 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.
Mohindra Mohan Sirkar Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1977
Reported in: 81CWN876,[1978]112ITR47(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned trial judge discharging the rule nisi obtained by the appellant on his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant carries on his business as a Government contractor, and he is an assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1961. He filed his return for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 within the period prescribed therefor. He was served with a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on May 25, 1971, whereby he was called upon by the Income-tax Officer to appear and produce the relevant evidence in support of the returns filed by him. The date of hearing of the assessment proceedings was fixed on June 17, 1971, which was subsequently adjourned to September 22, 1971. On that date, the appellant was heard by the Income-tax Officer. He produced before the Income-tax Officer the payment certificate in original as given to him by the Government, the bank pass book and oth...
Bombay Safe and Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.K. Bandopadhyay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1977
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT224(Cal)
Subyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is an order in revision passed by the Government of India on 20th September, 1975. The petitioner manufactures steel furniture falling 'under item 40 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It had been giving trade discount to its distributors and wholesale dealers at varying rates ranging between 'nil', 1 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 percent. The Assistant Collector had allowed the discount of 10 percent in respect of cash box and .12 per cent in respect of safe and wall coffers but in other cases he did not allow any discount. In this application, I am concerned with the last mentioned cases, that is, not in respect of cash box or safe and wall coffers. The Appellate Collector had in all other cases admitted abatement of discount allowed by the petitioners at varying rates ranging from 'nil' to 15 per cent in the orders in appeal. He had held as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›