Kolkata Court June 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.
Shiba Prosanna Banerjee Vs. Mrityunjoy Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal428,82CWN1052
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. The only question that is involved in these Rules is, whether on the partition of the land comprised in the tenancy of non-agricultural tenants without the knowledge and consent of the landlord, such tenancy is split up and the tenants ceased to be co-sharers. 2. On Dec. 3, 1961, there was a partition between the co-sharer tenants of the tenancy in question. Upon such partition, Plot No. 1768, of Khatian No. 618, of Mouza Radhanagar, was exclusively allotted to the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, Saralabala and Susama, in Civil Rule No. 2049 of 1973. Plot No. 1767 was, however, kept joint between the co-sharers. There is no evidence that such partition was consented to by the landlord. On Oct. 24, 1965, Saralabala and Susama transferred their interest in Plots Nos. 1768 and 1767 to the opposite party No. 1, Mrityunjay Khan, a stranger, without serving any notice on Shiba Prasanna of such transfer. After Shiba Prasanna had come to know of the transfer, on April 10, 1968 ...
Mrs. Roma Bose and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal584,82CWN984
B.C. Ray, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the petitioners is against thejudgment and order passed by Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. on Feb. 10, 1978 discharging the Civil Rule No. 7597 (W) Of 1974.2. The petitioners 1 to 3 who are the owners and the petitioner No. 4 who is a lessee in respect of the premises No. 104, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road challenged the notification dated 2-11-72 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the declaration dated 29-11-73 made under Section 6 of the said Act on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution being Civil Rule No. 7597(W) of 1974. The said notification under Section 4 was issued notifying that lands including the disputed premises mentioned in the said notification measuring more or less 0.754 hectare were likely to be needed for the public purpose namely for construction of Mass Rapid Transit system and other connected works relating to the said system from Dum Dum to Tollygunge, in the city of Calcutta. ...
Ascu Hickson Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC11(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. M/s. Ascu Hickson Limited have initiated the pre-sent reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal has drawn up a statement of case and has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court as questions of law arising out of its order:(i) Whether, on a proper interpretation of the agreement dated 1st January, 1964, executed between the applicant and M/s. V.D. Swami & Co. Pvt. Ltd., the relationship between the applicant and M/s. V.D. Swami & Co. Pvt. Ltd. was that of a vendor and vendee.(ii) Whether the despatches outside West Bengal made by the applicant of goods valued at Rs. 4,15,964.34 against orders secured by M/s. V.D. Swami & Co. Pvt. Ltd. were sales within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. 2. The facts found and/or admitted in the proceedings are, inter alia, that under an agreement dated 1st January, 1964, entered into by and between M/s...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Mathuradas Govardhandas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR583(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Cuba, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60. The relevant previous year is 2015 Dewali. The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, Sri Ghanshyamdas Binani, having a ten annas share and his wife, Smt. Padma Binani, having a six annas share. The assessee was the managing agent of Metal Distributors Ltd. and was also carrying on business as insurance and clearing agent. The assessee also held investments in shares and securities. While examining the accounts the ITO noticed credits in the names of M/s. Kasturchand Baijnath and Gangadas Kothari for the sums of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1,00,000, respectively, both dated January 10, 1958.2. The assessee was required to prove the credits. A letter was filed from Kasturchand Baijnath confirming the loan. Gangadas Kothari was reported to be dead. Of course some purjas showing receipt and repayment were produced.3. Summons were issued to Kasturchand Baijnath for production of books of accounts, but there wa...
Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1978
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT365(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The appellant Company at the relevant time carried on business of proceeding and sale of lubricating oils and greases. The appellant Company had a factory at 109, Fore Shore Road, Howrah. According to the appellant Company it produced greases of two varieties, namely (1) asphalt base grease and (2) soap base grease for which it blended or compounded lubricating oil was used. In the present case we are concerned with the question whether or not the said soap base greases manufactured by the appellant Company were excisable goods under Item No. 11B of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Act. The Asstt. Collector, Calcutta, II Division by the notice dated 31st May, 1976 alleged that greases made by the appellant Company out of duty paid compounded lubricating oils fell within the Item No. 11B of the 1st Schedule of the aforesaid Act and the Company was asked to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon it and why the duty involved on the said grease...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR476(Cal)
C.K. Banerji, J.1. These references relate to the assessment of Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd., Calcutta, for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1964-65, and have been initiated under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The relevant accounting years are the calendar years 1957 to 1963, respectively.2. The facts found and/or admitted are shortly as under : The assessee had made certain remittances to its parent company, viz., Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., U.K., a non-resident company. The ITO was of the view that the said remittances were income chargeable to tax. As the assessee had not deducted tax from the amounts remitted as required under Section 18(3B) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, which corresponds to Section 195(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the ITO by a letter dated 1st March, 1965, called upon the assessee under Section 201(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to pay within a week from the receipt of the said letter a sum of Rs. 87,59,815 being the amount of tax which should have been deducted and ...
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mil ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC197(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The facts found and/or admitted in this reference are, inter alia, as follows:Messrs. Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd., the respondent herein, filed its return for sales tax under Section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), for the four quarters ending on 31st March, 1964. In computing the gross turnover, it was noticed that amounts realised from sales in the respondent's canteen aggregating Rs. 1,67,946.35 as also the proceeds of casual sales of block and discarded goods had not been included in the gross turnover. The respondent claimed that in law the said amounts did not form part of the taxable turnover. The Commercial Tax Officer rejected such contentions, included the said amounts in the turnover and assessed sales tax accordingly.2. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dep...
Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(Cal)110
C. K. Banerji, J.This reference relates to the assessment of Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd., Calcutta, for the Assessment Years 1958-59 to 1964-65 and has been initiated u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The relevant accounting years are the calendar years 1957 to 1963 respectively.The facts found and/or admitted are shortly as under :2. The assessee had made certain remittances to its parent Company, viz. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., U.K., a non-resident Company. The Income Tax Officer was of the view that the said remittances were incomes chargeable to tax. As the assessee had not deducted tax from the amounts remitted as required u/s 18(3B) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which corresponds to s. 155(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Income Tax Officer by a letter dt. 5th March 1965 called upon the assessee u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to pay within a week from the receipt of the said letter a sum of Rs. 87,59,815/- being the amount of tax which should have been deduct...
A.P.V. Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR937(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment of A. P. V. Engineering Co. Ltd., under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, in the assessment year 1963-64, the previous year thereto being the calendar year 1962. The facts found and/or admitted in the proceedings are as follows :In the balance-sheet of the assessee as at 31st December, 1961, a sum of Rs. 3,35,914 was shown under the head 'Provision' as 'Provision for Taxation less advance payments under provisional assessments'. Under the head 'Reserves and Surplus ', another sum of Rs. 11,41,689 was shown as ' Manufacturing, Trading and Profit & Loss Account--balance at credit after providing for the proposed dividend for the year ended 31-12-61'.2. The assessee plaimed that the said amounts of Rs. 3,35,914 and Rs. 11,41,689 should both be treated as reserves under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the S.P.T. Act, 1963, and be included in its capital base in the said assessment year. The ITO held that the amounts did not ...
Golam Mohit Mondal Vs. Abdul Jalil Sepai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal443
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal against a decree of affirmance in a suit for specific performance of a contract of reconveyance of the suit property. The defendant No. 2 sold the suit property to the defendant No. 1 by a registered kobala dated Dec. 7, 1959 (Agrahayan 20, 1366 B. S) for a consideration of Rs. 250/- only. On the same date the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement agreeing to reconvey the same property to the vendor, his heirs or nominees if the said amount of Rs. 250/- was paid to him at a time within Kartick, 1370 B. S. The plaintiff purchased the said property with the benefit of the agreement for reconveyance from the defendant No. 2 by a registered kobala dated May 5, 1960 for consideration. The plaintiff thereafter by notice dated Sept. 14, 1963 requested the defendant No. 1 to execute the reconveyance on receipt of the sum of Rs. 250/- but the defendant No. 1 failed to execute the deed as required. Thereupon the plaintiff on deposit of the sum of Rs. 25...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »