Kolkata Court February 1978 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Assam Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: [1980]124ITR711(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessee is a limited company. It was a non-resident company in the relevant assessment year. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1963-64, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31st December, 1962. The assessee-company was taxed in India on its United Kingdom income. The ITO invoked the provisions of Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1946, which provided that the excess profits tax refund was to be deemed as income for the purposes of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In this connection, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Indian Finance Act, 1946. Sub-section (11) of Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1946, read as follows:Section 11(11)' Any sum being excess profits tax repaid in respect of any chargeable accounting period under the provision of seetion 10 of the Indian Finance Act, 1942, or of Section 2 of the Excess Profits Tax Ordinance, 1943 (XVI of 1943), shall be deemed to be income for the purposes of...
Tag this Judgment!Sangam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR601(Cal)
Sen, J.1. The facts found and/or admitted in this reference are, inter alia, as follows :M/s. Sangam, Calcutta, the assessee, was constituted by a deed on the 30th January, 1961. One Laxmi Devi and one Naraindas Lakhumal were described in the said deed as partners. Business in piece-goods as also cotton and silk goods were carried on under the said deed in Stall No. G-13, Block 'G' in Sir Stuart Hogg Market, Calcutta.2. On the 21st February, 1966, a fresh deed was executed by the parties incorporating the terms and conditions, modified from the earlier deed. The relevant terms are as follows:'(a) That the parties hereto would carry on the business in copartnership under the name and style of Sangam in the Stall No. G-13, S.S. Hogg. Market, Calcutta, for further term of 10 years commencing from the 1st day of February, 1966. (b) The entire capital of the business required from time to time for the purpose of carrying on the business would be advanced by the said Naraindas Lakhumul and t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Health and Co. (Calcutta) P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR605(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we are concerned with the assessment year 1962-63. The question in respect of which this reference arises is whether the sum of Rs. 1,51,008 was allowable as a deduction in the hands of the assessee. The assessee is a subsidiary of J. Lyons, (London) (hereinafter called 'the London company'). The London company had another subsidiary by the name of Lyons (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called ' the Indian company'). The assessee was purchasing tea and exporting it to the London company. The assessee-company was purchasing tea in India and exporting it to U.K. and other countries but its transactions were not with the London company. The assessee did not have any staff of its own for effecting these purchases. The necessary staff was maintained by the Indian company. The assessee-company utilised for several years the services of the said staff and was making payments to the Indian company, on a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR434(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment for the assessment year 1960-61. The relevant previous year ended on 30th September, 1959. The assessee is a company. Theassessee carries on business of production and distribution of cinematograph films. During the year, the assessee produced and released for exhibition a film called 'Sagar Sangame'. In respect of this film, the assessee had entered into an agreement with one Amar Das Mallick, a film producer, on 20th June, 1957. Under the agreement the assessee was to finance the production and to be the distributor of the film. The assessee had to finance a sum not exceeding Rs. 1,12,500 including Rs. 10,000 for acquiring the story rights, Rs. 25,000 for the director, Debaki Kumar Bose, and Rs. 5,000 to the music director, Sri Rai Chand Boral. The film was to be completed in six months and the assessee was to be the absolute owner thereof. The film was produced. It secured the President's award. The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Rohtas Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: [1978]112ITR798(Cal)
Sen, J.1. The facts found and/or admitted in this reference are of short compass. Some time in 1951, Messrs. Rohtas Industries Ltd. of Dalmia-nagar, the assessee, purchased from M/s. Escher Wyss of West Germany, a paper making machine. On installation it was discovered that the machine was defective and that its output was below the guaranteed figure. 2. Thereupon, correspondence ensued between the assessee and the German firm. By its letter dated the 17th December, 1953, the assessee complained that the machine in its best condition was not producing more than 12 tons in 24 hours though the guaranteed production was 20 tons in 24 hours. This letter was followed by a telegram from the assessee reiterating the complaint. The assessee also asked for free and immediate supply of parts of the machine. The German firm by their letter dated the 10th January, 1955, undertook to supply free certain parts of a specified value. In spite of the replacement of the parts, the output of the machine ...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. (House and Land) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR785(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with four assessment years, namely, assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 and the relevent accounting years are Diwali years 2022 to 2025 respectively.2. The assessee is a private limited company. By a lease dated the 21st September, 1954, entered into between the assessee and one Maharaja Probirendra Mohau Tagore, the latter gave on lease, ' all these messuages, lands, hereditaments and premises No. 26, Prosanna Kumar Tagore Street, commonly known as ' Tagore Castle' in the town of Calcutta' to the assessee for a period of 84 years with an option of renewal for a further period of 7 years. In order to appreciate the contentions urged in this case, it would be necessary to set out in extenso the relevant clauses of the said lease dated the 21st September, 1954. In the recital clause it was stated, inter alia, as follows :'And Whereas the Lessee has agreed to take a lease for the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhikraj Jaipuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR883(Cal)
Banerji, J. 1. This consolidated reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relates to the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1959-60 to 1964-65.2. The facts found and/or admitted in the proceedings are as follows :For the assessment year 1956-57, Bhikraj Jaipuria, the assessee, submitted a return of his income in the status of a HUF as claimed in earlier years to the ITO, Central Circle II. In a covering letter he explained that on division of some of the assets of the Hindu joint family a portion had come to the assessee in his individual capacity and, therefore, he had also submitted a separate return as an ' individual' to the ITO, District V(I).3. The ITO, Central Circle II, however completed the assessment in the status of ' individual'.4. On appeal, the AAC did not adjudicate on the question of status as according to him such status did not affect either the income or the tax. On further appeal, the Tribunal remanded ...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshwar Thakur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1978
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ379Cal
G.N. Ray, J.1. The petitioner in the instant Rule was engaged as a casual porter on a daily rate of Rs. 2 vice Khudu Ram Misir expired. On completion of six months as casual labourer, the petitioner was given a scale of Rs. 70-85. The selection test was held by the Recruitment Selection Board for regular absorption of the porter but the petitioner was not selected by the said Board. The Assistant Personal Officer, Headquarter thereafter issued a memo terminating the service of the petitioner with 30 days notice and it was stated in the said notice that the said order of termination would take effect from May 14, 1968. Before the expiry of the said period of notice the petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the order of termination in a writ proceeding before this Court whereupon a Rule being Civil Rule No. 4878 (W) of 1968 was issued. The aforesaid Rule was ultimately discharged by this Court on January 18, 1973 and the petitioner preferred appeal to this Court against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax/Super Profits Tax Vs. Indian Standard Wagon ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: 82CWN669,[1979]118ITR623(Cal)
Guha, J. 1. The point involved in this case is whether certain amount set apart for payment of gratuity to the retiring labourers would be a 'provision' or 'reserve' for the purpose of capital computation under the Second Schedule of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. The reference in question arises from the assessment proceeding under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, for the assessment year 1963-64. The relevant previous year ended on 31st March, 1963. 2. Under the aforesaid Act, tax should be levied on the chargeable profits of the previous year in accordance with the rates set out in the Third Schedule to that Act. 'Chargeable profits' mean the total income of theassessee computed under the I.T. Act, 1961, for any previous year and adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule. The super profits tax is levied only on the balance remaining after adjustment of the balance-sheet deduction against the chargeable profits. 3. The assessee is a company carrying on the bus...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamaya Dassi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: [1980]126ITR748(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Tulsi Charan Law died on 6th of January, 1962, leaving behind him his wife, six sons and four daughters. He left a will executed on 20th December, 1956. In the said will he provided as follows:'(1) My just debts and funeral expenses shall be first paid out of my estate.(2) That all the movable and immovable properties receivable by me under the will of late father, Kumar Surendra Nath Law, inclusive of the compensation moneys to be received from the Govt. due on acquisition of the Narayangarh and Dafarpota Zamindaries, I devise, give and bequeath equally to my wife, Sm, Mahamaya Dassi, and to my six sons, Ajit, Sarat, Ranjit, Sanat, Biswanath and Sankar. My wife shall have life interest, power of alienation. After her death her share be taken equally by my sons or their heirs (males only).(3) That during the life time of my wife after my death she shall act as the guardian of the persons and properties of my such sons, who will then remain minors till such of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »