Kolkata Court January 1980 Judgments
Ramanlal Madanlal Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC35(Cal)
D.K. Sen, J.1. Ramanlal Madanlal, the petitioner in this application, is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioner is also registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act and the Central Sales Tax Act and carries on business, inter alia, of sale of condemned stores and disposal materials including heavy machinery, tractors, cranes, trailers, road-rollers, etc.2. For the period of four quarters ending December, 1965, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax. In the proceedings some of the petitioner's books were produced, the other books, having been seized by the income-tax department, the petitioner's accounts could not be closed. Under the circumstances, the Commercial Tax Officer rejected the return of the petitioner where the gross turnover was shown to be Rs. 2,08,071.75, and the gross turnover was estimated to the best of his judgment at Rs. 3,00,000.3. Being aggrieved by the said assessment dated 29th September, 1967, th...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumar Ghosh Vs. Tulsi Charan Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal134
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. An order dated April 10, 1979, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, is the subject matter of challenge in these two revisional applications which are being heard on contest by the opposite party. By the order impugned the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 9 Rule 13 thereof filed in Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1972 and an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in Title Execution Case No. 23 of 1973 which objection was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 43 of 1973. Facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are not in dispute and may be set out briefly as follows. On June 24, 1970, the petitioner Sukumar Ghosh filed Title Suit No. 31 of 1970 in the 2nd Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Howrah, praying for a decree for partition and accounts in respect of the suit properties against his brother the opposite party Tulsi Charan...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Sushil Chandra Guha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal148
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J. 1. Title Suit No. 97 of 1972 was instituted by the plaintiffs-opposite parties. On the 11th December, 1974, three P. Ws. were examined. On that date, the defendant-petitioners filed an application for local inspection. It was allowed. Subsequently, that application for local inspection was rejected by the learned Munsif. Then the date was fixed for hearing of the suit. On the date fixed, the defendant made an application for adjournment. The prayer was allowed as last chance and the suit fixed on 25th July, 1975, for peremptory hearing. On that date, the plaintiff-opposite parties were present. But the defendants failed to appear. Then the learned Munsif proceeded to deliver the judgment. The suit was decreed and then, the defendant-petitioners put in an application for restoration of the suit according to the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-opposite party raised an objection as to maintainability of the petition under Or...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar of Companies Vs. Bharat Produce Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas250(Cal),84CWN463
Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. 1. The rule is directed against the order dated June 15, 1979, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, dropping the proceeding of Case No. C-1718 of 1978 which was initiated on a complaint filed by the petitioner against the two opposite parties for an offence under Section 269(2) read with Section 629A of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. In the complaint it was stated that Bharat Produce Company Ltd., the accused opposite party No. 1, was incorporated as a public limited company on January 15, 1940, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Pursuant to a special resolution passed on July 9, 1956, it was converted into a private company. The company was again converted into a public company on or about December 15, 1970, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 43A of the Companies Act, 1956, and continued to function as such. Sri Subkaran Chhawchharia (accused opposite party No. 2) was appointed as a director of the company on January 6,...
Tag this Judgment!East Coast Commercial Company Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR326(Cal)
C.K. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated the 22nd September, 1976, passed by the court below discharging the rule and dismissing a writ petition made by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice dated 20th March, 1969, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, issued by the lTO, 'C' Ward, Companies District-I, Calcutta, the respondent No. 1.2. The appellant, M/s. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd., is a company. It carries oh business, inter alia, in jute, gunny and shares and also derives income from property, dividends and interest on securities. The income-tax assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 1952-53, the relevant accounting period being from 17th July, 1950, to 29th October, 1951, was completed by C.R. Nair, the then ITO, Companies District-I, Calcutta, on the 29th March, 1957, under Section 23(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The appellant had filed its balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Mondal Vs. Sahadeb Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal140
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiff's case is that one Rajmohan Mondal was the owner of the entire 22 decimals of land noted on the schedule 'Ga' to the plaint. After his death, his son, Sadhan Mondal, inherited the property. He executed a power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff's wife, Manorama Debi. On the footing of that power of Attorney, she sold the said property to the plaintiff by a registered kobala dated 27-5-1975. The suit is for a permanent injunction. An application for a temporary injunction was put on by the plaintiff. 2. The defendant filed an objection. The allegation is that in 1961 Rajmohan Mondal executed a deed of agreement for selling the property to him. On the strength of that document, he is in possession of the land in question on payment of rent. The plaintiff's purchase is a collusive one. 3. The prayer for temporary injunction was turned down by the learned Munsiff. The plaintiff-petitioner moved up in appeal and was unsuccessful before the learned A...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Shankar Chachan Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ505
P.C. Borooah, J.1. Bhawani Shankar Chachan has, in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution oi India, challenged the detention of his brother Dungarmall Chachan, who was detained pursuant to an Order No. F. 673J 25/78-Cus. VIII dated Jan. 12, 1979 passed by Shri B. B. Gujral, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter the Act) and has prayed for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus.2. The aforesaid order was passed with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting, cancelling and keeping smuggled goods.3. The detenu was taken into custody pursuant to the said order on Dec. 9, 1979 and on Dec. 12, 1979 the grounds of detention contained in Order No. F. 673/25/78-Cus. VIII dated Jan. 12, 1979 were served up...
Tag this Judgment!S.C.N. Chowdhury Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1980
Reported in: [1982]136ITR542(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, we are concerned with the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, respectively.2. Relevant facts of this case as stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the statement 6f case submitted to the court may briefly be stated.3. The assessee was assessed to wealth-tax for the six assessment years mentioned above and the corresponding valuation dates were 31-12-57, 31-12-58, 31-12-59, 31-12-60, 31-12-61 and 31-12-1962. The assessee was originally assessed for the aforesaid assessment years, but subsequently, it was found out by the WTO from the relevant assessment records pertaining to income-tax, that a letter from the assessee dated 25th March, 1965, addressed to the ITO, 'E' Ward, District III(1), who was the assessing-ITO of the assessee, informed him (the ITO) that the assessee had made a disclosure of Rs, 2,28,000 under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme under Section 68 of...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Chandra Majumdar Vs. Pijush Kanti Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1980
Reported in: 84CWN459,[1980]122ITR552(Cal)
Manoj Kumar Mukherji, J.1. On a complaint filed by the petitioner, the two accused/opposite parties are now facing trial in the 14th court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under sections 406, 403 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial the complainant has examined a number of witnesses and exhibited a number of documents, including certain records maintained by the IT. authorities in respect of the firm of M/s. Ghose Mazumdar & Co. These records including the I.T. returns of the firm were exhibited through P.Ws. 22 and 23 who were the officers of the said department. After P.W. 23 was partly examined and some of those documents were exhibited, a petition was filed on behalf of the accused persons questioning the admissibility of the records of the, I.T. Department as evidence. As such an objection was not taken when the witness was summoned and his evidence commenced, the learned Magistrate decided to take up the petition for hearing after the evidence of t...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Chandra Chakraborty Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: 84CWN293,[1980]126ITR831(Cal)
Pratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The plaintiff along with one Giridharilal Ganatra used to carry on business as brokers in the jute and hessian market, in Calcutta, long prior to 1964.2. In the first week of November 1964, the defendant, through its officer, Mr. J. P. Singh, the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, made an announcement in a press conference which was published in the Times of India and the Statesman both dated November 8, 1964, to the effect that the persons who would disclose their concealed income voluntarily would be treated leniently by the defendant in the manner mentioned in the said publication. It was further published that the rate of the reward to those furnishing information about concealed income had been stepped up from 2.5% to a minimum of 7.5% of the extra tax to be realised as a result of such information and in suitable cases the reward might go up to 10%. Similar announcements were published in the Sunday Tribune, Ambala, Hindusthan Times...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »