Kolkata Court April 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.
Kashinath Das Vs. Pravash Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal509
Janah, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant No. 3 and it arises out of a suit for partition, for permanent injunction and for possession on declaration of plaintiff's title to certain structure standing on the suit land. The plaintiff's case is as follows:2. The suit land described in Sch. Ka to the plaint being premises No. 47/2, Beliaghata Main Road, Calcutta, measuring 3 cottah 5 chhataks belonged to plaintiff's parents. Out of the said land plaintiff's mother received 3 cottahs of land by way of gift from her father. The remaining 5 chhataks of land was owned by the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's father constructed a house with bricks and bamboos having a corrugated iron sheet roof on the western side of the aforesaid 3 cottahs of land. The plaintiff's parents along with the plaintiff and the defendants who are the plaintiff's brothers and sister used to live in the said structure. The plaintiff's father Benimadhab Das and the plaintiff's mother Panchubala died in the year 195...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Soorajmul Nagarmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1978
Reported in: [1983]139ITR239(Cal)
C.K. Banerjee, J. 1. The following question is involved in this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Calcutta, under Section 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in refusing, under Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to register the assessee-firm under Section 26A of the said Act.'2. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1949-50, for which the relevant previous year ended on the Ram Navmi Day of the Samvat year 2005. The assessee is a firm and it applied for registration under Section 26A of the Act for the said assessment year. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO served a notice under Section 22(4) of the Act requiring the assessee to produce the books of the following businesses as belonging to the assessee ;1. Prahladrai Agar...
Satyanarayan Rungta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR382(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The statement of the case relates to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65.2. The assessee is an individual. He was an employee of a company. In the accounting years relevant to the aforesaid assessment years he received Rs. 23,900 and Rs. 27,667, respectively, as his salary from the company. The company issued certificates showing that his salary was tax-free.3. The assessee produced the certificates before the ITO in the assessment proceedings. The ITO added the amounts payable as tax on the aforesaid amounts and after allowing certain deductions determined his salary at Rs. 46,857 for the assessment year 1963-64 and Rs. 41,292 for the assessment year 1964-65.4. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by both the appellate authorities and the following questions were referred by the Tribunal to this court under Section 256(1) of the Act:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ...
Paresh Chandra Hati and ors. Vs. Ahitosh Panda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1171
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application has been filed by the petitioners, five in number, who are the opposite parties in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate drawn up, at the instance of the first party Ahitosh Panda who is impleaded in this application as one of the opposite parties. The prayer o4 the petitioners before this Court is for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate.2. The petition is being opposed by both the first party and the State. Mr. S. N. Ganguly appears for the petitioner, Mr. Satyajit Mondal represents the first party and Mr. Sudipta Moitra appears on behalf of the State. The contention of Mr. Ganguly before us is that in view of Sub-section (8) of Section 110 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 the proceeding before the trial court ought to have been terminated with the expiry of six months from the commencement of the inquiry. It is contended from the side of the petitioners that as soon as the opposite...
Phanindra Bikash Roy Chowdhury Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal544,1979CENCUS124D
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the adjudication proceedings culminating in the orders dated 30th May, 1975, 24th April, 1976 and 18th July, 1977. It appears that on or about 23rd April, 1974 certain officers of the Central Excise searched the residence of the petitioner and amongst other seized and took away one 'Ananta', an armlet in the form of two and a half circles of wire of 22 carat fineness weighing 127.500 grams, the value of which was estimated at Rs. 6,630/-. Thereafter the petitioner gave a statement, in writing, at the time of the search. In the said statement, the petitioner stated, inter alia, as follows:'I signed the said authorisation in token of my having seen it. The officers then searched the rooms under my occupation in the above said residence in my presence and also in presence of two independent witnesses. On search the officers recovered primary gold 'Araipanch' (24 circles) weighing 127.50...
Anil Mohan Banerjee Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas338(Cal)
A.N. Banerjee, J. 1. These eleven rules raise the common question of law, namely, whether the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted illegally in condoning the application under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the complainant-opposite party provisionally and whether he was also justified on the averments made in the petition of complaint to issue process under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), against the accused petitioners.2. It appears that on May 20, 1976 the complainant-opposite party No. 1 filed 11 petitions of complaint with applications for condonation of delay for 11 months starting with March, 1973. It was alleged that the accused persons are/were the officers, as directors/secretary of the company at all relevant times and have contravened the provisions of section 418(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, and have rendered themselves liable for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956. It has been alleged in ...
Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR383(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a limited company. The assessment year involved is 1964-65.2. During the financial year 1963-64, the assessee paid Rs. 12,56,466 as advance tax under Section 210 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the aforesaid assessment year. Its business income was assessed at Rs. 36,05,811 under Section 143(3) of the Act and the tax claimed was more than the advance tax paid by the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before the AAC against the assessment order. The AAC reduced the income by Rs. 14,98,592(?) and also included additional income of Rs. 12,637. Thus, the revised business income of the assessee became Rs. 21,20,760.3. The ITO then passed an order dated March 17, 1971, under Section 251 of the Act calculating the tax at Rs. 9,68,567 against which the assessee had already paid advance tax of Rs. 12,56,466 and, after allowing the assessee Rs. 60,899 as interest under Section 214, calculated the total am...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anna Art Press (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR821(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. Whether, on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case, the payment of gratuity of Rs. 24,000 by theassessee-company to its ex-manager is deductible in computing its businessincome ?'is the question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court for answer.2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, may be stated as follows :The assessee is a private limited company and derives income from business in running a printing press. The assessment year involved is 1966-67, the corresponding accounting year being the year ending on 31st March, 1966. During the year of account, the assessee paid Rs. 24,000 as gratuity to its ex-manager, Mr. H. J. Hallen, who retired after putting in a service of 20 years with the assessee-company. The assessee claimed the payment as a deduction in the computation of its taxable income for the assessment year 1966-67. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that no ap...
Tarapada Majumdar Vs. K.B. Ghosh and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal68
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by defendant No. 1 K. B. Ghosh & Co. a firm carrying on business and having itsoffice at 6, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta in Suit No. 510 of 1977 asking that the suit against the applicant, K. B. Ghosh & Co. be dismissed, the name of M/s. K. B. Ghosh & Co. be deleted from the cause title of the plaint and the plaint be amended by deleting or striking out the allegations against K. B. Ghosh & Co. It appears that there was a partnership firm under the name and style of Calcutta Decorators of which Purna Roy Chowdhury, Smt. Mallika Roy Chowdhury, one Amit Roy Chowdhury and Ajit Kumar Roy Chowdhury, who are defendants Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in the present suit, were the partners. There were certain disputes and there was a reference to arbitration and the arbitrators were one Tarapado Majumdar and Pari-mal Kumar Roy Chowdhury. In respect of the said arbitration proceedings, the defendant No. 1, K. B. Ghosh & Co. wrote a letter to Sri Tarapado...
Sm. Sujata Maitra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal374,82CWN894
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order of the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal dated Dec. 21, 1976 reversing on appeal an award of the Co-operative Development Officer and Arbitrator-II dated June 18, 1976.2. It appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 in respect of shares in the Surendranath Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as also the right, title and interest in Suit No. 22 Unit No. 1, East Block of the Society.3. The petitioner who is the widow of late Tapan Kumar Mitra claimed, with her mother-in-law, the suite as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased while his brother, the respondent No. 3 claimed the suite as also the shares of the deceased in the society on the basis of a nomination made in his favour by the deceased earlier under Section 69 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. The Arbitrator held that the heirs and legal representatives are entitled to the suite while the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »