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.
Pioneer Spring and Steel Concern Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1978
Reported in: [1982]135ITR522(Cal)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. The question of law arising in this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the managing director's remuneration allowable for the assessment year 1970-71 was only Rs. 1,200 per month ?'The facts of this case as admitted and not disputed are as follows : For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee-company claimed the managing director's remuneration at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month, apart from provident fund contribution and commission on sales. The ITO by his order of assessment dated 26th March, 1973, allowed the provident fund contribution and commission on sales. He, however, restricted the allowable salary to Rs. 1,000 per month and gave a deduction of Rs. 12,000 as against Rs. 24,000 as claimed by the assessee. In doing so he relied on the order of the AAC in respect of the assessment...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Avery India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1978
Reported in: [1980]124ITR856(Cal)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. The following question arises for determination by this court in this reference :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 9 lakhs claimed as reserve for super profits tax was a reserve within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and should be included in the computation of capital for the purpose of the said Act '2. We ought to point out that this question has been referred at the instance of the revenue. There is another reference arising out of another application made by the assessee. A separate paper book has been filed in respect of the same and by our order we have directed the same to appear as a separate reference. We are concerned in this reference with only the question referred to above.3. The facts admitted and/or not disputed are as follows : There is an Act called the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, which received the assen...
Hirendra Nath Poddar Vs. Shibendra Nath Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal135,83CWN190
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at, the instance of the defendant No. 1 and it arises out of a suit for partition and possession,2. The plaintiff and the defendants are brothers. The joint properties of the plaintiff and the defendants were partitioned by a registered deed dated Feb. 21, 1972. Upon such partition, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 were allotted specific properties in respect of their respective shares, excepting that the disputed property which is a building consisting of two rooms only, was allotted jointly to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, the former having 3/4th share and the latter 1/4th share therein. From before the said partition, a shoe shop named 'Sricharaneshu' was being run in the suit house. The shoe business was allotted exclusively to the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff has no claim thereto. The plaintiff instituted the suit praying for partition by metes and bounds of his 3/4th share in the disputed building.3. The defendant No. 1 contested ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.L. Bajoria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR6(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, It relates to the assessment of 1966-67 and the question before us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 67(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest of Rs. 79,609 was an allowable deduction in computing the share of the assessee in the income of the firm, M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull ?' 2. The assessee is au HUF. The assessee borrowed Rs. 79,609 and invested the said amount with M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull, a firm in which the assessee was a partner. M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull utilised this amount for payment of its taxes. 3. In the assessment proceedings the ITO held that the interest paid by the assessee on the aforesaid amount was not a deductible expenditure on the ground that M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull had utilised this amount for payment of its taxes. 4. The AAC dismissed the appeal filed by...
Calcutta Art Studio (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR752(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. This reference, under Section 256(2) of I.T. Act, 1961, arises out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1969-70, and the question before us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the salaries paid to the managing director and other director were excessive, is perverse ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of lithographic printing which it took over in the assessment year 1967-68, from Calcutta Art Studio, a firm in which there were several partners.3. Shri P.K. Biswas, Shri S.M. Biswas and Shri Biswajit Biswas were some of the partners of the aforesaid firm and they became the employees of the assessee-company. The AAC in the appeal filed by the assessee-company has allowed the salary paid to them but we are not directly concerned with it in this reference.4. The senior partner of the aforesaid firm was Shri Surendra Nath Biswas. He is a qualified artist and an...
Chhagan Lal Vs. the Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal160,83CWN195
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. In this Second Appeal Chhaganlal Marwari, the principal defendant No. 1 of the original suit is the appellant- The appeal is being contested by the plaintiff-respondent, the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. described hereinafter as the Company.2. The allegation of the plaintiff-company in the plaint is that the pro forma defendant No. 4 Mahammadin Brothers, a business concern was a non-agricultural tenant in respect of the suit land under the plaintiff and thereafter some constructions were made by the said tenant. The Company filed the Title Suit No. 76 of 1953 in the First Court of Munsif, Asansol against Mahammadin Brothers for recovery of khas possession of the suit land by evicting the said tenant therefrom on determination of the tenancy and also for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. In that suit a preliminary decree was passed on 12-11-1953. The recovery of khas possession of the disputed property was to be made on payment of compensation as might ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delta Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (Now Known as ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR492(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The controversy in this reference arises out of calculation of depreciation of capital assets of a company transferred pursuant to an amalgamation.2. Cheviot Jute Co. Ltd., previously known as the Delta Jute Mills Co. Ltd., is the assessee. By an order of this court dated the 26th September, 1961, another company named Belvedere Jute Mills Co. Ltd., had amalgamated with the assessee with effect from the 30th November, 1961. In the assessment year 1967-68, the previous year being the year ended on the 30th November, 1966, the assessee in its assessment to income-tax claimed that depreciation should be allowed on the assets taken over by it on amalgamation calculated at the book value at which they were taken over. The ITO, however, allowed depreciation on the said assets on their written down value in the books of Belvedere Jute Mills Co. Ltd.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal against the said order of the ITO. The AAC held that Expln. 7 to Sectio...
Himangshu Sekhar Jha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ537
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against an appellate order passed by the Additional Inspector General of Police dated the August 31, 1976, reprimanding the petitioner after having found him guilty of charge 1 (a) of the charges. The petitioner was charged for dereliction of duty in that(1) while he was posted as C. I., Chandernagore, there was one case of flacoity and five cases of robbery in the area of the rail police falling within the area of C. I., Chandernagore and that (a) he contributed to the failure of control of railway crimes in the period from 12-3-1973 to 14-12-1973 by not organising surveillance over and tracing out rail criminals in his area as enjoined in P. R. B. 189 (n) and 580 (b).... There are other charges marked as 1 (b) and 2 in respect whereof the Deputy Inspector General of Police who acted as the Enquiry Officer found charge 1 (b) as not proved and charge 2 as proved and he recommended punishment by reduction of pay by Rs. 25/- per month fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Properties Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR126(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, the court called for the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any larger dividend than that declared by the assessee-company could reasonably be distributed within the meaning of Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the application of Section 23A of the said Act was according to law?'2. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant accounting period being 1st July, 1959, to 30th June, 1960. The ITO observed that the profit and loss account showed a profit of Rs. 2,05,303. After adjusting income-tax to the extent of Rs. 2,353 the ITO worked out the commercial profit at Rs. 2,07,661. Deducting taxes @ 45% he arrived at a surplus of Rs. 1,14,214. The dividend declared was Rs. 70,000. Holding that the assessee was an investment company, the ITO found that 90% of the surplus should have been declared as div...
Chokshi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR249(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference arises out of reassessment of the income of Messrs. Chokshi & Co., the assessee, for the assessment year 1960-61. The relevant previous year for the said assessment year was Gujarati Dewali 2015, that is, the period from the 11th November, 1958, to the 30th October, 1959. 2. The facts found and/or admitted in these proceedings are shortly as follows: In the course of the assessment of the assessee for the subsequent assessment year 1961-62, the ITO noticed certain cash credits in the assessee's books of account, appearing in the names of different parties. The dates of the said credits fell within the financial year corresponding to the assessment year 1960-61. The ITO noticed that no ledger accounts were maintained in respect of such transactions and the entries in the cash book had been squared up in the cash book itself. Accordingly, the ITO initiated proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act for the assessment year 1960-61. 3. In the said pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »