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.
imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR516(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee before it on the ground that no competent appeal lay before the AAC ?'2. In order to appreciate the question posed, a few facts will have to be stated. The question arises with reference to the action of the ITO under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62, whereby he had withdrawn super-tax rebate which, according to him, was allowed in excess at the time of the original assessment. The ITO passed the order on 31st August, 1968. The action of passing the order-under Section 154 was due to the order of the AAC. The assessee went up in appeal to the AAC, who observed, inter alia, as follows :'The revision has been made for the reason that the income from dividends suffered super-tax at...
Smt. Nihar Bala Banerjee Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ725
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application has been filed by the complainant-petitioner Niharbala Banerjee against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge below allowing an appeal against the conviction of the accused persons who are the opposite parties here.2. To be very brief, the complainant's case was that on 19-11-69 at about 8 A.M. some of the accused persons, hereinafter described as the Gangulis, trespassed into the house of the complainant and assaulted her brother Surya Narayan. Surya Narayan anyhow freed himself and took shelter in the room. The Gangulis thereafter went away threatening that they would kill Surya Narayan. It is further alleged in tir. 3 petition of complaint that that very day at about 1 P.M. when Surya had been to the local Post Office, the other opposite parties who are made accused, and not the Gangulis, assaulted Surya. The allegation further was that, when the complainant knew about the assault, she came to the spot and the injured Surya was ...
Hope (India) Limited Vs. Mining and Allied Machinery Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal39,82CWN1018
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act two questions fall for consideration. The first question, is, what is the clause of the arbitration agreement between the parties and the second question is, whether the authority of the arbitrator named in the clause submitted on behalf of the respondent should be revoked. It is not necessary to set out in very much detail the facts of the case. But it appears that the respondent is a Government of India undertaking and the petitioner is a private limited company. Previously it was Pench Steels Limited and subsequently it was amalgamated with the petitioner company. By and under the purchase order dated the 24th June, 1975 executed by and on behalf of the respondent and accepted on behalf of the said company by the petitioner the respondent had agreed to purchase and the petitioner had agreed to sell 1000 metric tons of ingots of different varieties and sizes at agreed rate of Rupees 1,500/- per...
Mahalderam Tea Estate P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. D.N. Prodhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas529(Cal),[1979(38)FLR13]
P.C. Barooah, J.1. These three rules are directed against orders dated21-12-71, 19-11-71 and 21-12-71 passed in C. R. Cases Nos. 49/71, 71/71and 73/71, respectively, by Sri S. K. Sinha, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong, taking cognizance and issuing summons against the petitioners under Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, readwith para. 76 of the scheme framed under the Act.2. Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the directors of the Mahalderam Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. having its registered office at 14, Chandney Chowk Street, Calcutta-13, and owning tea gardens including Mahalderam Tea Estate in the District of Darjeeling. Sri D. N, Prodhan, Provident Fund Inspector, West Bengal, filed three complaints in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong, wherein it was alleged, inter alia, that the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the directors of Mahalderam Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. and hence responsible for the conduct of the business and...
Rawatmal Harakchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: [1981]129ITR346(Cal)
Sen, J.1. This reference relates to reassessment of Rawatmal Harakchand, the assessee, in respect of its income for the assessment year 1957-58.2. After issuing a notice under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the ITO brought to tax two sums, respectively, of Rs. 51,711 and Rs. 1,86,061, on the ground that the same escaped assessment in the said assessment year as the asses-see failed to disclose necessary material particulars.2. Pursuant to the reassessment there were penalty proceedings and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 was imposed by the IAC under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.3. In the appeal preferred by the assessee against the reassessment, the AAC upheld the addition of Rs. 1,86,061 but gave a relief of Rs. 6,000 in respect of the addition of Rs. 51,231.4. Thereafter, further appeals were preferred by the assessee against the order of the AAC as also against that of the IAC.5. The Tribunal went into the question of the validity of the reassessmen...
income-tax Officer, b Ward and ors. Vs. British Paints India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR878(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 17, 1973, of T.K. Basu J. [1974] TLR 115 allowing the respondent company's application made under art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of five notices all dated 14th December, 1964, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1961-62. By the aforesaid notices the appellant sought to reopen the respondent's assessments in respect of the aforesaid years. 2. Out of the aforesaid five notices the learned judge of the court of first instance cancelled and rescinded four notices relating to the assessment years 1956-57 to 1959-60 and directed the appellant to forbear from giving effect thereto in any manner whatsoever. The learned judge however upheld the notice for the assessment year 1961-62 and as there is no appeal against that decision it is not necessary for us to re...
Hindusthan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR85(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assessee during the financial year 1968-69, demanding payment of Rs. 3,61,000. Thereupon, the assessee filed an estimate on 21st August, 1968, under Section 212. According to the estimate the advance tax payable by the assessee was Rs. 3,85,000. In pursuance of the estimate the assessee paid the first instalment of advance tax of Rs. 1,28,333 on the 1st September, 1968. The second instalment of the advance tax of Rs. 1,28,333 was also paid on the 2nd December, 1968. In the premises, both the first and second instalments of advance tax wore paid within time. The assessee filed a revised estimate under Section 212(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the 12th of March, 1969, estimating the advance tax payable by it for the year at Rs. 12,10,000. The balance of advance tax payable for the yea...
Dhurjati Mohan Das and ors. Vs. Balai Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal262
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against an appellate order dated 25th Aug., 1967, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midna-pore, affirming the order of the learned Munsif dated 12-11-66 in a proceeding under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. It appears that the petitioners are landlords in respect of the disputed property held originally by the opposite party No. 2 as tenant. He sold his interest to opposite party No. 1 by a registered conveyance dated 19-12-55 who in his turn sold the suit property to the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 by a conveyance dated 12-12-58. It may be stated here that the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of opposite party No, 2, the tenant. The petitioners' case is that they were not made aware of these transfers which were fraudulently kept back from them and their father who was their pre-decessor-in-interest and only in the month of April/May, 1965, opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 approach...
Official Trustee of West Bengal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR219(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the provision of West Bengal Act No. II of 1963, as amended by the West Bengal Act No. XXXIX of 1963, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 84,000 was not deductible in computing the total income of the assessee ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1964-65 to 1967-68. This question is an echo from the old history of Bengal. Nawab of Murshidabad was the Nawab Nazim and Subedar of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and was entitled to the title of Nawab Nazim and the authority, dignity, stipend, pay, allowances, privileges and rights thereof and up to 1891, the said Nawab of Murshidabad was receiving these allowances and stipends for the maintenance of his dignity. Disputes had arisen between the Nawab, the members of his family and the G...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Jyotirmoy Raha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1978
Reported in: [1978]112ITR969(Cal)
Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment to estate duty of the estate of one Bidhumukhi Raha, who died on the 21st November, 1970. Under his last will and testament, Sarat Kumar Raha, the late husband of the deceased, had bequeathed to the deceased one small house in Calcutta absolutely as also another property being premises No. 5, Lovelock Place, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises'), providing further, that on the death of the deceased the said two premises would devolve on her two sons in equal shares. 2. The small house and the first floor of the said premises had at all material times been let out. Till her death the deceased resided in the ground floor of the said premises. 3. On the death of the deceased her son, Jyotirmoy Raha, an accountable person, filed a return of estate duty and claimed exemption in respect of the portion of the said premises used by the deceased for her residence under Section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The As...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »