Kolkata Court February 1979 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.
India Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR484(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The question with which we had to deal was as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 50,000 was an admissible deduction under the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The question really was whether the sum of Rs. 50,000 paid by the assessee in that case was a revenue or capital expenditure. We referred to the observations of Lord Cave in the case of Atherton v. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. [1925] 10 TC 155; [1926] AC 205 (HL). We also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1959]37ITR66(SC) . All these principles were reviewed by the Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1955]27ITR34(SC) and there the Supreme Court laid down certain principles which are applicable ...
Sundar Mondal Vs. Smt. Sailabala Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal195
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directed against the judgment passed in Misc. Appeal No. 167 of 1973 by the learned District Judge, Howrah, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.2. The petitioner's case is that he along with Badan Chandra Mandal and Nidhiram are co-sharers of the disputed property, namely, the residential house and the doba appertaining thereto. Badan Chandra Mandal transferred by deed of sale a portion of the share in the undivided residential house and the doba appertaining thereto to Sailabala on 22-12-1966. Badan Chandra Mandal did not disclose in the deed of sale that he had co-sharers and also did not comply with the mandatory provisions laid down in Section 5(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. On 30-4-70 the petitioner came to know about the sale and on 21-5-1970 the petitioner filed an application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act before the Revenue Officer on 22-5-1970 which was later on transferred to the learn...
Lakshmi Narayan Prasad Bhagat Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR454(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. Admittedly, the petitioner was and is chargeable to tax under the Bengal Agrl. I.T. Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). For the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, there were certain proceedings initiated against him under the said Act and demands were raised. Those demands, not having been duly satisfied, certificate proceedings were also initiated and they have also been determined against the petitioner. The notices meant for the assessment years as above, which were required to be served on him in terms of Section 24(1) or (2) of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, were never or not at all served on him duly. As such, the petitioner has stated that he has no knowledge or intimation of the proceeding and so also was the best judgment assessment made and completed under Section 38(1) of the said Act, which was followed by, as mentioned hereinbefore, the initiation of certificate proceeding under ...
Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Probodh Kumar Mitter and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal292
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 19th April, 1971 passed by Roy Chowdhury, J. in a suit for damages for a sum of Rs. 68, 598/-.2. The facts shortly are that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called Mitter) was a dealer in stocks and Shares and was carrying on such business under the name and style of Sree Krishna & Co. in Calcutta. One R. N. Ghose alias R. K. Ghose, the respondent No. 2 herein, on or about 10th May, 1951 verbally agreed to sell and Mitter agreed to purchase several shares in various joint stock companies. The said shares were sold through the defendant No. 1 Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd., the appellant herein (hereinafter called the bank). The bank made out various bills representing the price of the shares sold to Mitter and asked Mitter for payment and then to take delivery of the shares. The bank delievered the said shares to Mitter between 15th May and 7th June, 1951. Mitter paid the amount of the said bil...
Jagadish Prasad Poddar Vs. Peter Robbinson and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal348
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. The present application has been taken out by Jagadish Prosad Poddar for an injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, dealing with or disposing of or parting with the possession of 474 shares of Reliance Construction Private Limited and for an order appointing a Receiver over the said shares and also for an injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from exercising any voting right in respect of those 474 shares.2. The facts shortly are, Peter Robinson, one of the Directors of defendant No. 2, Reliance Construction Private Limited entered into an agreement on 9th March, 1977 with the plaintiff whereby he agreed to sell to the plaintiff 474 shares at a price of Rs. 300/- each on, inter alia, the following terms and conditions (i) that the said sale would be subject to the approval of the Reserve Bank of India; (ii) completion of the said sale would take place at a time and to be agreed not later than 60 days following the receipt of such approval...
Narendra Prasad Srivastava Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ451
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against the judgment and order dated January 1978 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of J977 affirming the judgment and order dated August 11, 1977 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in Case No. C 8 of 1974 convicting the accused petitioner Narendra Prosad Srivastava under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.2. The ease for the prosecution briefly stated was as follows:On the strength of a search authorisation issued under Section 105 of the Act by the Assistant Collector of Customs, the residence of the accused was searched on February 10, 1974 by some Customs Officers on the reasonable belief that diamonds, rubies and precious stones of foreign origin liable to confiscation, were secreted therein. Prior to the s...
Bangali Prosad Vs. Draupadi Dedi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ454
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 29th October, 1976 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Asansol in Misc. Case No. 100 of 1974 awarding a sum of Rs. 100/- as maintenance to the opposite party wife and Rs. 50/- per month for the child. The petitioner husband has challenged the validity of his marriage with the opposite parry. The learned Magistrate went into evidence adduced by the opposite party wife, i. e., her oral evidence together with Exhibit 2 which is a certificate of Registration on their marriage under the Hindu Law and also Exhibit 1 which is an agreement executed by the parties affirming the marriage. The wife, opposite party claimed maintenance on the ground that she was treated in a cruel manner by the husband who was in the habit of beating her and being unable to endure such behaviour she went to live with parents in 1974. The opposite party did not care to pay anything towards maintenance of the opposite party and her minor child. Th...
Shyam Sundar Bhartia and ors. Vs. Gourishankar Bhartia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal230
Monjula Bose, J.1. This suit has been instituted by one Sitaram and Shyam Sun-dar Bhartia as joint owners inter alia for possession of 18 rooms in premises Number 75, Cotton Street, Calcutta more fully described in the plaint, mesne profits from July 24, 1959, until delivery of possession, an enquiry into damages if necessary, interest and costs.2. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint in short is that one Omkarmal Bhartia the father of Gourishankar, Hari-shankar and Shivshankar Bhartia the present defendants Nos. 1, 11, and 13 had an undivided half share in the said premises. Upon his death in July 1951, the said property devolved or passed by survivorship to his widow Jaydeyi Bhartia one of the original defendants since deceased, and his said three sons and several grandsons by his eldest son Gourishankar. On or about July 14, 1952, the defendant No. 1 for self and as Karta of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his sons, his brothers Hari-shankar, Shivshankar and his moth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›