Kolkata Court March 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.
Calcutta Jute Agency (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR741(Cal)
Sen, J.1. The facts found and/or admitted in this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are of short compass. The Calcutta Jute Agency (P.) Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, carries on business in purchase and sale of jute. Under an agreement dated 3rd April, 1963, one W.F. Ducat & Co. had been engaged to carry on the business of the assessee as the latter's manager and/or managing agents. Acting on behalf of the assessee, W.F. Ducat & Co. entered into a contract for purchase of jute in London from Pakistan in 1965, and opened a letter of credit there covering the price of the said jute in favour of the intending seller. Thereafter, hostilities broke out between India and Pakistan, the contract could not be performed and the letter of credit remained unoperated. There was devaluation of the Indian rupee in June, 1966, and by reason of the unoperated letter of credit, W.F. Ducat & Co. received a sum of Rs. 1,52,710 in excessover the amount originally deposited by them in rup...
Manton and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: 1984(18)ELT753(Cal)
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. The plaintiff carries on the business of jewellers and watch makers under the name and style of Arlington & Co. as the sole proprietor thereof and in this suit claims to be the absolute owner of 6 diamond rings and 21 watches which were seized by the Customs Authorities on May 18 and 19, 1956 in the course of a search conducted at the residence of Ramnath Bajoria the defendant No. 6. The plaintiff alleges that it had made over the said articles to the defendant No. 6, for inspection between April 3, 1956 and May 10, 1956 and the said articles are liable to be returned to it. It is alleged that notices Under Section 80 of the Civil P.C. have been duly served on the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 being respectively the Union of India, the Customs and Income Tax Authorities. No relief is claimed against the defendant No. 6 who has died since the institution of this suit nor against his wife, the defendant No. 7.2. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a joint written state...
Khandelwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR452(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This is a consolidated reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, arising out of the income-tax assessment of Messrs. Khandelwal Bros. Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, in the assessment year 1965-66. The question referred at the instance of the assessee is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit of Rs. 1,95,883 accrued to the assessee on account of devaluation of Indian rupee was business income ?'2. The question referred at the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I, Calcutta, is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit of Rs. 1,95,883 on account of devaluation of Indian rupee did not accrue or arise to the assessee on 3rd November, 1964, when the assessee actually adjusted its account in respect of the sum due to the assessee from Messrs. K. A. Export Corporation, New York?'3. The facts ...
National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1978
Reported in: [1978]113ITR252(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of Messrs. National Engineering Industries Ltd., the assessee. The following questions have been referred:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,50,790 on account of interest under Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for delayed payment of tax dues was not an allowable deduction in the computation of total income ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, in view of the computation of loss in the assessment, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts found and/or admitted are, inter alia, that in its assessment to income-tax for the assessment year 1969-70 (the previous year ending on 31st March, 1969) a sum of Rs. 2,50,790 was claimed by the assessee ...
Apeejay (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal577,[1979]49CompCas602(Cal),82CWN712
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Government of India dated 23rd Nov. 1977 by which the Government of India were unable to give their approval to the proposed transaction to sell to the petitioner the net assets of the Ludlow Jute Company Limited, the respondent No. 3, a non-resident Company in terms of the assets purchase Agreement dated the 8th June, 1977 between the said two parties.2. The petitioner company on June 8, 1977 entered into an agreement for purchase of assets of M/s. Ludlow Jute Company Limited. The said Agreement provided that after March, 31, 1977 M/s. Ludlow will work as caretaker of the petitioner company. In para 9.4 of the said Agreement there is a provision for obtaining approval of the Government of India. The said para 9.4 reads as follows :Government Approval : Approval satisfactory to the purchaser and its council to the consumption of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement shall have been obtained from the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Soorajmull Nagarmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: [1981]130ITR917(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1949-50, for which the relevant accounting year is R. N. 2005. The assessee is M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull which is a firm.2. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee-firm, inter alia, was the managing agent of two sugar mills situated in East Pakistan, namely, North Bengal Sugar Mills Ltd., Sitabgunj Sugar Mills Ltd. and a concern styled as Sitabgunj Agricultural Farm Ltd. 3. Undisputed facts are that the assessee lent money to the managed companies in East Pakistan and that money was lent at Calcutta in their head office and then was brought into East Pakistan for the business of the managed companies of the assessee. The claim of the assessee before the ITO was that a sum of Rs. 2,07,028 was the income of the assessee in Pakistan as interest on borrowed money, as the managed companies of the assessee-firm utilised the assessee's money for which interest had been charged. The account of the assess...
Damodar Hansraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR999(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessment year involved in this reference is assessment year 1959-60. The previous year relevant to the assessment 1959-60 ended on the 11th November, 1958, while that, for the assessment year 1960-61 had ended on the 1st November, 1959. In making the assessment for the assessment year 1960-61, the ITO had noticed credits in the names of several parties aggregating to Rs. 65,000 between the period 11th November, 1958, and 5th March, 1959. The assessee failed to explain the genuineness of the credits to the satisfaction of the ITO. As the credits fell, according to the ITO, within the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, the ITO treated the credits of Rs. 65,000 as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources in the assessment year 1960-61. In appeal, the AAC did not accept the assessee's contention that the credits were genuine loans from the creditors. He took the peak of the credits at Rs. 55,000. He held that those credits coul...
Sajjan Kumar Saraf Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR155(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. It appears that Shri B. L. Saraf died on 9th of July, I960, and a notice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, calling upon him to file the return of income for the assessment year 1961-62 was issued on 7th July, 1961. The said notice was issued in the name of Shri B. L, Saraf who had already died on the 9th July, 1960. On 2nd of June, 1965, Sajjan Kumar Saraf, in his capacity as 'the legal representative' of the deceased, filed the return of income for the assessment year 1961-62, Notices under section 143(2} and 142(1) of the Act were issued to Sri Sajjan Kumar Saraf as the legal representative of the late Shri B. L. Saraf. For the assessment year 1959-60 also an ex parte assessment was raised against the deceased on 3rd of March, 1962. Against this ex parte order, Shri Sajjan Kumar Saraf filed a petition under section 27 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as the legal representative of the deceased on 23rd April, 1962. We are concerned in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: [1978]113ITR810(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. In this consolidated reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessment years involved are 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The relevant previous years ended on March 31, 1960, March 31, 1961, and March 31, 1962. The question referred is as follows : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that neither Section 154 nor Section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was applicable ' 2. The facts found and/or admitted in these proceedings are that in the original assessments of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, development rebates of various amounts were allowed. Subsequently, it was pointed out by the revenue audit that the rebate allowed was irregular and, therefore, should be withdrawn by rectification of the assessments. Thereupon, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the assessee to show cause why the alleg...
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1978
Reported in: [1983]142ITR460(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In the reference, two questions have been referred to the court :'(1) Whether on a proper interpretation of entry (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expression 'aluminium' occurring in entry (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the said Act denotes merely the aluminium metal and not aluminium articles ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 80B(1) read with entry (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium articles cannot be considered as a priority industry within the meaning of the said provisions of the said Act and the assessee-company is not entitled to relief under Section 80-I of the said Act ?' 2. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Bharat (now State of Ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »