Kolkata Court June 1979 Judgments

H.A. Nanji and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward and Ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1979)2CompLJ85(Cal),[1979]120ITR593(Cal)

Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. dated April 28, 1972, whereby the rule nisi obtained by the appellant on an application under Article 226 was discharged.2. The appellant is a partnership-firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of buckets. For the assessment year 1958-59 (accounting period ending on December 31, 1957J, the appellant was assessed by the respondent No. 1 on an income of Rs 32,562 as computed according to the order of assessment dated January 30, 1959. According to the appellant, at the time of assessment, its representative produced copies of account of each creditor and disclosed fully and truly all transactions with each of the parties on production of all relevant vouchers, discharged hundis, statements of payments of interest with receipts, confirmation letters of creditors with respective income-tax file numbers, as asked for, also balance-...

Luxmi Chand Rustogi, Etc. and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and anr ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1980CriLJ22

Bimalendra Nath Maitra J.1. The case for the prosecution is that on 4-6-1971 at about 11 a. m. P. W. 1 Amitava Sarkar, a Food Inspector appointed by the State Government under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, went to the oil shop of the accused at 3/5 Orphanganj Market, Kidderpore, Calcutta. At that time the accused appellant, Lakshmi Chand Rustogi, was in the shop. The Food Inspector took 2/3 samples of coconut oil from him in the presence of witness after observing all the formalities. Such oil was stored there and exposed for sale for human consumption. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported the same to be adulterated. Both the accused appellants were prosecuted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The defence was that it was non-edible oil, which was perfumed oil and not meant for human consumption.3. The learned Senior Municipal Magistrate believed the prosecution version and convicted t...

Ritz Continental Hotels Ltd. Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1980CriLJ414

ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directed against a proceeding which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta. The prosecution is under Section 58A(3)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is the Ritz Continental Hotels Limited a Company under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 12, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceeding which is pending against the said Company and the Directors of the Company. The facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner and others are as follows:The Ritz Continental Hotels Limited as I have stated is incorporated as a Public Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and was registered on the 30th March, 1964 having its registered office at 12, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta. In the petition of complaint it is alleged that under clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 every deposit accepted by a Company at...

Dover Road Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Corporation ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1980Cal141

ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. The present application has been taken out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 42 members of a Co-operative Housing Society Limited who are residents of 22, Dover Road, Calcutta, against the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta, the Dy. Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta, The Collector, Corporation of Calcutta, the Assessor, Corporation of Calcutta, Sub-Inspector, Corporation of Calcutta, Sub-Assessor, Corporation of Calcutta and the State of West Bengal for necessary reliefs.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative body registered under the name and style as 'Dover Road Co-operative Housing Society Limited' and the other petitioners are its members. The Dover Road Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. was formed with the object of establishing on Co-operative basis, for providing family accommodation for persons with moderate income by affording each member facilities for owning or acquiring a flat. The society purchased the said premises No. 2...

Jai Kumar Kankaria Vs. Competent Authority and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1981]130ITR593(Cal)

Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging a proceeding initiated under Section 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relating to acquisition of the property of the petitioner's undivided l/9th share in premises No. 6, Little Russell Street, Calcutta, and the notice issued under Section 269D(1) of the Act dated 7th of September, 1972, and the proceeding thereunder instituted by respondent No. 1 and the notice dated 25/28th of November, 1974, issued by respondent No, 2 and all proceedings thereunder. The facts are shortly as follows:2. The petitioner purchased l/9th share of the premises No. 6, Little Russell Street, Calcutta, for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. This conveyance was executed on 9th of March, 1973. A notice was issued to the petitioner on the 3rd of August, 1973, by the Valuation Officer of the I.T. Dept. stating that a reference had been made to him for determination of the fair market value of the said prem...

Radha Shyam Bagaria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner-company in its written statement inter alia contended that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said reference on the ground that the Central Government was not the appropriate Government to make the reference of the alleged dispute between the management of Maritime Engineers and its workmen. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, by its order dated August 13, 1975, has held that the reference made by the Central Govt. was legal, valid and tenable and it fixed the date of final hearing of the reference in question.2. The petitioner-company has obtained this Rule inter alia praying that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal be quashed and the Tribunal be prohibited from further proceeding with the reference made by the Central Government.3. The short point in this Rule is whether the reference under Section 10(1)(d) made by the Central Government to the Central Indust...

Nowda Thana Co-op. Agricultural Marketing Society Vs. W.B. Co-op. Trib ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1979Cal318

ORDERM.N. Roy, J. 1. The petitioner, Nowda Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Society), is one incorporated and constituted under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and at the relevant time, the respondent No. 6, Birendra Nath Bajpayee, was its Secretary. Thereafter, on the basis of certain allegations against the said respondent No. 6, the Managing Committee of the said Society, took decision and passed resolution to the detriment of the said respondent No. 6. 2. Against such action, the respondent No. 6 filed a dispute under Section 86 of the said Act, before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Murshidabad and by an award dated 28th July 1978, the Arbitrator concerned, declared the resolution of the Managing Committee, relating to the no confidence motion against the respondent No. 6 or the action as proposed to be taken, to be illegal and void inter alia on t...

Birpara Tea Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1980]126ITR704(Cal)

C. Mukharjee, J.1. During the pendency of this rule, the name of the petitioner, M/s. Birpara Tea Company Ltd, was changed and it is now known as M/s. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. In the above view, I allow the application for amendment dated 5th June, 1978. Let the cause title of the writ petition be amended. Paragraph IA of the amended writ petition, annexed to the amendment application, be inserted as prayed for. In view of the formal nature of the amendment, it is not necessary to direct service of the copy of the amended petition on the respondents. In fact, the amendment application along with the amended writ petition has been already served upon the learned advocate appearing for the respondents.2. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is a notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Calcutta, dated 26th September, 1975, annex. 'E' to the writ petition. The Commissioner by the said notice purported to state that on November 16, 1973, the ITO ...

Kashinath Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 84CWN28,[1983]139ITR116(Cal)

Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. In this rule, the petitioner challenges two best judgment assessment orders for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. In, respect of the assessment year 1969-70, the order is dated the 9th of June, 1972, and there it appears that the petitioner did not file any return and, accordingly, he was assessed under Section 25(5) of the West Bengal Agrl. I.T. Act, 1944. In arriving at the agricultural income of the petitioner, the Agrl. ITO computed the value of the paddy as also deductions and the tax payable as follows :'Assessed under Section 25(5) for failure to submit return. Land: 25 acres of agrl. land as per past records has been accepted for the purpose of assessment in the absence of any return. In the absence of any return, the production of crops which are valued as per Rule 4(2)(a) has been estimated on the basis of the prevailing local average. Computed thus : Aman 25 acres X 6.50 qlts. acres X Rs. 80 per qlt.=Rs. 13,000Straw 25 acres X 2 khns. acres X ...

Surajmal Ganeshram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1979]120ITR715(Cal)

C.K. Banerji, J. 1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Surajmal Ganeshram, an unregistered firm, the assessee, for the assessment year 1947-48, for which the relevant previous year in respect of income from business ended on Rathajatra of Samvat year 2003 and in respect of income from other sources on the 31st March, 1947. The facts are shortly as follows :One Mukhalal Khaitan carried on business under the name and style of Surajmal Ganeshram as its sole proprietor up to the assessment year 1947-48. By a deed dated the 2nd July, 1946, the said proprietary business was converted from the 1st July, 1946, into a partnership firm with the same name with Mukhalal Khaitan, Bhudarmal Khaitan, Ramkaran Khaitan alias Hargobind Khaitan and Dedraj Khaitan as its partners. The said firm was first assessed to income-tax, as a registered firm, in the assess-ment year 1948-49, the relevant previous year being the one ended on Rathajatra, Samvat year 2004. Long thereafter, the I...