Kolkata Court November 1978 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.
Rajendra Nath Majhi Vs. Tustu Charan Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal105
B.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiff hat alleged that the disputed property belonged to one Mahendra Das, who died leaving six sons, Sashi, Brojomohan, Chandi Charan, Tulsicharan, Tustu (defendant No. 1) and Jaoaki. Sashi is dead and Palaram (defendant No. 2) is his son. Those six brothers sold the property to Suren Das and Dulal Das. Thereafter Suren transferred his 8 annas share of his property to one Rajen. Then on the footing of a registered kabuliyat dated 9-11-1943, Rajen and Dulal settled the property to Brojomohan (Mahendranath's son) at a rental of Rs. 17-8 annas. After his death, the property devolved on his two daughters, Kamalabala (pro forma defendant No. 3) and Binabala. The latter died without any other heir and hence, her interest was inherited by her sister, Kamalabala. The latter sold the suit land to the plaintiff by a kobala dated 30-11-1961 for Rs. 1,500/-. The plaintiff is inpossession of the property. But in the R.S. khatian, the land was erroneously recorded in the n...
Harbanslal Malhotra and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR629(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian I.T, Act, 1922, and the question referred was as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'incenctive bonus' provided during the year was not a proper liability and could not be deducted in arriving at the commercial profits for the purpose of considering the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1961-62 and the relevant accounting years are the financial years ending on March 31, 1956, March 31, 1957, and March 31, 1961, respectively.3. The assessee is a private limited company and manufactures razor blades known as 'Bharat'. In order to act as an inducement for distributors or sellers to effect larger sales of the blades manufactured by the assessee, the assessee devised a scheme of giving bonus to...
Raghubir Prasad Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR789(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee relates to the assessment year 1970-71. The previous year ended on March 31, 1970.2. In the proceeding for the assessment of tax, the ITO added, inter alia, Rs. 61,000 in the book profit of the assessee. During the year under assessment through an overdraft arrangement with Chartered Bank Ltd. import quota granted in the name M/s. Widge and Co. for 152 Wisconsin engines was purchased on November 8, 1969. In connection with this purchase the assessee had to pay on July 11, 1969, a sum of Rs. 61,000 as penalty to the customs authority for import of the petrol engines. According to the ITO, the penalty for an infringement of law was not an admissible expense.3. The assessee went in appeal before the AAC. Upholding the contention of the assessee-appellant the AAC held that the amount of Rs. 61,000 paid by the assessee as penalty for releasing his goods from the customs aut...
Gopi Nath Sen and ors. Vs. Bahadurmul Dulichand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal203
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. It is settled law that the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract not only up to the date of the suit but at least upto the completion of the trial.2. In this case of specific performance in course of the trial Dulichand a partner of the respondent firm in course of bis examination in chief as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff was asked in question 71 as follows :--Q. 'Are you still ready and willing to take the lease from the defendant?' His answer was: 'No. At present we claim the damage only'. The question arose if this was permissible under the law. Could the plaintiff have waived or abandoned the claim for specific performance and claimed damages simpliciter in lieu thereof? Such a question arose in the case of Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon 55 Ind App 360; (AIR 1928 PC 208). In that case also the plaintiff by his conduct debarred himself from the relief of specific performance and t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.S. Singh and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR30(Cal)
Dipak Kumak Sen, J.1. The short facts in this reference are, inter alia, that Messrs. R. S. Singh & Co., the assessee, is a partnership constituted under a deed dated the 18th May, 1953. The material parts of the said deed are, inter alia, as follows :'Partnership deedThis Indenture of partnership made this 18th day of May one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three Between1. Ram Swarth Singh, son of late Dargga Singh, by caste Hindu by profession trader and a contractor at present residing at Kanchrapara within the district of 24 Pgs.Of the first part. And2. Rambalak Singh Sachidanand Singh, a Hindu undivided family, consisting of Ram Balak Singh and Sachidanand Singh where the karta is Rambalak Singh by caste Hindu by profession a trader and a contractor at present residing at Kanchrapara within the district of 24 Pgs.Of the second part. And3. Chandradip Singh, son of Sri Sital Singh, by caste Hindu by profession a trader and a contractor at present residing at Kanchrapara within the ...
Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1978
Reported in: [1980]125ITR270(Cal)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. The following questions have been referred to the High Court by the Tribunal, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reassessment proceedings under Section 8 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the purpose of making the second reassessment on 31st August, 1970, for the assessment year 1965-66 had been validly initiated?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dividend reserve of Rs. 13,85,000 could not be taken into account in the computation of capital of the assessee under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1965-66 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to entertain the additional ground of appeal filed on 26th June,...
Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR434(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. In the year of assessment 1963-64, the accounting period being the year ending the 30th June, 1962, the Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, claimed development rebate in respect of dumpers owned by it. The ITO disallowed this claim on the ground that the dumpers were road transport vehicles for transporting materials from one site to another.2. On an appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC accepted the contentions of the assessee and held that dumpers were not road transport vehicles and accordingly allowed the claim for development rebate.3. On a further appeal by the revenue, it was contended before the Tribunal that dumpers should be treated as road transport vehicles. The assessee contended that in the Table under the I.T. Rules, 1962, prescribing rates for depreciation dumpers have been categorised as earth movingmachinery and not as road transport vehicles. It was contended further that under a circular issued by the Board of Rev...
Dayaram Garia Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ286
B.N. Maitra, J.1. In this case the accused was prosecuted on a charge under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. On 6-5-1977, the arguments were heard and a date fixed for delivery of judgment. Ultimately the judgment was not delivered. On 17-5-1977, the learned 7th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order that the evidence of P. W. 1 Tarun Dasgupta was ambiguous on a particular point. He also considered that the examination of A. Dasgupta, Chief Security Officer, Vigilance Office of the Commissioners, Port of Calcutta, was essential for a just decision of the case. So he issued urgent summons for that purpose. Against that order the present Rule has been obtained.2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner has contended that on 6-5-1977 the arguments were heard and judgment reserved till 14-5-1977. On that date the judgment was not delivered and 17-5-1977 was fixed for delivery of judgment. On that date also the learned Magistrate did not deliver...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Guru Investment Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR522(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts in the present proceedings which have been found or admitted are as follows :2. N. Guru Investment Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, a private limited company, started to function in the assessment year 1966-67, the accounting year being the calendar year 1965. The assessee was incorporated in May, 1964, and had taken over an existing business on the 1st January, 1965. The said business consisted of manufacture of precision instruments and had been started in 1961. Under a deed dated the 2nd November, 1965, the business was taken over by the assessee with retrospective effect as from the 1st January, 1965.3. In its assessment to income-tax the assessee claimed benefit under s, 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as it stood at that time, on the ground that it was a newly established industrial undertaking. The ITO found that the assessee had been formed by reconstruction of a business already in existence and that the previous proprietor of the business and his n...
Binod Kr. Jhunjhunwalla Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ287
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J.1. The allegation is that on 8-8-1975, Sub-Inspector, Arun Kumar Paul, along with others went to 25/B, P. K. Tagore Street, Calcutta, and seized certain articles from the factory of Ajanta Aluminium Company. The allegation is that huge quantity of railway goods were recovered. The accused could not satisfactorily explain their possession of such goods. Some witnesses were examined and thereafter charge was framed against the two accused under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Hence these two Rules at the instance of the two accused.2. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the accused have stated that the identity of the goods in question has not been established. Moreover, the evidence of the investigating officer shows that the articles are all in broken and damaged condition and are not in serviceable condition. The argument is that since the identity of the articles has not been established and since the same are not In ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »