Kolkata Court August 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.
Pioneer Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: [1980]125ITR765(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee relates to the assessment year 1966-67, the relevant previous year being the one ended on June 30, 1965.2. The assessee is a company to which the provisions of Section 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961, are applicable. The assessee was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 4,31,200 on which a tax of Rs. 2,14,661 was levied. After deduction of tax, the balance of assessed income came to Rs. 2/16,539. The assessee had not declared any dividend in respect of the relevant previous year within 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous year. In reply to the notice issued by the ITO the assessee pleaded that, in view of the past years' tax liability of Rs. 6,58,592, there was hardly any scope for them to distribute any dividends and, therefore, the liability under Section 104 to pay additional tax was not attracted.3. The plea, however, was not accepted by the ITO...
Purna Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. Durlav Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Cal10,83CWN901
N.C. Mukherji, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri S. C. Roy, Additional Subordinate Judge, Hooghly dated 4th Oct. 1958 in Title Appeal No. 142 of 1956 affirming those of Shri K. N. Mukherji, Munrit 2nd Court, Serampore, dated 5-3-56 in Title Suit No. 282 of 1953.2. A Representative Suit under O. 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. was filed by the plaintiffs for injunction against the defendants upon declaration of the customary rights of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that from time immemorial the inhabitants of the locality peaceably, openly and without interruption have been performing Barowari Kalipuja, Gajan of Lord Siva, the pujas of the Saraswati, Rakshya Kali and other deities and other religious performances. It is further stated that the inhabitants have been performing these pujas in 'Ka' schedule lands commonly known as 'Kali Pujar Sthan' and that thev have been performing the said pujas and ceremonies in assertion of their customary ri...
Sudhir Kumar Seal and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas462(Cal)
P.C. Borooah, J. 1. The petitioners, who are directors of Aviquipo of India Private Ltd. having its registered office at 22, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, have in this application impugned the validity of Case No. C/3044 of 1977, pending in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta, which was initiated on a complaint filed by the opposite party, viz., the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, under Section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, for violation of Section 210(1) and (3) of the said Act. The allegations made against the petitioners and the company were that the company failed to place the balance-sheet for the year ending November, 1975, at its annual general meeting which was held on the 29th May, 1976, but was placed in the adjourned annual general meeting which was held on the 15th of July, 1976.2. In our view, the prosecution is misconceived and this view is shared by Mr. J. N. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Assistant Regis...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Kumar Agarwalla and Bros. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR322(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessments of Ram Kumar Agarwalla & Bros. (P.) Ltd., Calcutta, in the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. In each of the said years, the assessee failed to file any return of income within the time prescribed in Section 22(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Notice under Section 22(2) of the Act directing the assessee to file a return had not been issued to the assessee for any of the said years. Later, pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, issued on the 17th March, 1966, the assessee filed returns for each of the said years on the 11th April, 1966. The ITO completed the assessments thereon and levied interest under Clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals to the AAC who upheld the decision of the ITO and confirmed the levy of interest. The said appeals were dismissed by a common order.3. The assessee went up in...
Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1978
Reported in: [1981]128ITR302(Cal)
Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of an assessment of Duncan Brothers & Co., under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), in the assessment year 1965-66, the previous year whereof ended on the 31st December, 1964.2. Under the said Act, a special tax is levied on the 'chargeable profits' of a company, to be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in the First Schedule thereto. The Second Schedule to the said Act contains rules for computing the capital of a company. Under the Third Schedule to the Act surtax is charged on the amount by which the 'chargeable profits' exceed the amount of statutory deduction. The part of the chargeable amount as does not exceed 5% of the amount of capital as computed in accordance with the Second Schedule is taxed at the rate of25%. On the balance, if any, of the chargeable amount, tax is charged at the rate of 40%.3. In the assessment, the assessee had claimed that under Rule 2 of the Second S...
K.P. Bhaskaran Vs. R. Sen and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1493
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 2-9-77 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1975 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd court, Calcutta, allowing in part the petitioner's claim in respect of wages due to him and disallowing the rest.2. The proceeding before the learned Magistrate was under Section 145(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act for recovery of wages from the opposite party M/s. R. Sen & Co. of 13, Camac Street, Calcutta-16. The petitioner who was originally appointed as a Fitter of the ship s. s. Bay Bengal and thereafter a Second Engineer on and from 3-10-64 by a letter of appointment dated 23-10-64 worked as such until 9-8-70 when he of his own accord left the services of the opposite party. The petitioner was assured by the opposite party that his wages would be settled immediately after his release but in spite of repeated reminders the opposite party having failed to meet his demand for a sum of Rs. 9685.13 P. which was due to him as wage...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›