Kolkata Court February 1980 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.
Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS436D,1981(8)ELT27(Cal)
ORDERChittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The short point in these two Rules is whether or not the Collector of Excise, Calcutta had committed any error of jurisdiction by dismissing on the ground of limitation the two appeals preferred by the petitioner company against the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, II-Dvn. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a well-known manufacturer of paper and papers boards. On 2nd April, 1971 the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta, II-Division upheld the re-classification of paper made by the Superintendent, Central Assistant Unit No. II(I) and ordered payment of diffe- rential duty. The petitioner company received the said order on 9th October, 1971. The prescribed period of limitation of an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was three months. On 8th January, 1972, the petitioner sent by registered post with A/D an appeal under Section 35 of the Act addressed to the Appellate Collector Central Exc...
S.A. Kaiser Vs. Noor Sahan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ611
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure awarding a sum of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner's wife per month and Rs, 250/- for each of the two children per month, as maintenance.2. The case of the opp. party wife is that she was a refugee from Sind and she became acquainted with the petitioner at Baroda from where she came away with him to Calcutta and as he was a Muslim, she agreed to be converted to Islamism and she married him, thereafter according to Muslim rites and customs. Thereafter, she lived with him for long 21 years and bore him three daughters, and a son who died. The daughters were born in 1963, 1965 and 1967 respectively. The opposite party wire's case further is that the petitioner is very well to do man having a Cinema house and several race horses and a five storied building which fetches him very handsome amount, as rent. Further being a business ma...
Sanwarmal Goenka Vs. Soumyendra Chandra Gooptu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal37
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 19th February, 1970 passed by Mrs. Khastgir, J.; whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application for injunction of the appellant and directed him to pay the costs thereof.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the respondent Gooptu gave a letter to the broker, one B.C. Baid, in connection with the sale of promises No. 11, Rowdon Street, Calcutta of which admittedly he was a part owner. The said letter read as follows :'Sri B.C. Baid,207, Maharshi Debendra Road, 12th December, 1978, Dear Sir, Re : Premises No. 11, Rowdon Street, Calcutta. I shall sell the above property for a price of not less than Rs. 7,50,000/-. If you can arrange the purchaser I shall give you commission of 2% (two per cent). This offer will remain valid for three weeks. Yours faithfully,Sd. Soumyendra Chandra Gooptu.' 3. By letter dated January 1, 1979 written by Messrs. T. Banerji & Co., Advocates and address...
Haripada Samanta Pramatha Nath Samanta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR592(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.The asscssee has framed the following question in his petition : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a) was legal and valid ?'2. The aforesaid question was decided against the assessee in an earlier proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by following the said judgment of this court and has also rejected the application filed by the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Act. 4. We do not agree with the Tribunal that the question has become purely academic, but at the same time we discharge the rule by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas : [1962]44ITR726(SC) , for the assessee has not challenged, by raising an appropriate question, the basic finding of the Tribunal that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all m...
Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR708(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 3, 1976, dismissing the application filed by the applicant and discharging the rule nisi issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The appellant is an assessee under the I.T. Act. The appellant used to take loans on khata peta, accounts in the usual course of business. In the aforesaid accounts, there were entries in the names of M/s. Surajmall Brijlal, M/s. Bharat Purchasing Company and M/s. Jhunjhunwalla & Sons Pvt. Ltd. in the accounting years relevant for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 which are the subject-matter of this appeal. 3. The appellant duly filed its return of income for the aforesaid assessment years. The ITO issued notices calling upon the appellant to furnish full details and particulars regarding the loans on the aforesaid khata peta accounts and interest paid on those loans. In compliance with those notices the appellant disclosed and furnished those particulars and det...
Amarendra Nath Bose Vs. SachIn Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal150
G.N. Ray, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the instant appeal and this appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 1352 of 1968 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 240 of 1966. The plaintiff-appellant instituted the said Title Suit No. 240 of 1966 for eviction of the defendant-respondent from the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and the tenancy of the defendant respondent was determined by a valid notice to quit. It appears that an application under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was made by the defendant respondent but the said application was dismissed on the finding that the said application was barred by limitation and an application under Section 17 (3) at the said Act made by the plaintiff-landlord was allowed by th...
Purnendu Kishore Chakravorty Vs. Rasomay Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal152
ORDERA.K. Janah, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for revision of an order dated November 29, 1979 passed in Title Suit No. 595 of 1978 by the Munsif, Second Court, Alipore. By the said order the learned Munsif allowed the prayer made by the opposite party under Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit upon the same cause of action.2. In this matter a caveat was lodged on behalf of the opposite party in this Court and Mr. Suchit Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the opposite party. The application was assigned to me by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. After hearing Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner, I heard Mr. Suchit Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate for the opposite party.3. Title Suit No. 595 of 1978 of the second court of the Munsif, Alipore, in which the order has been passed was filed by the opposite party aga...
Sonajuli Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashkaran Chatter Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas568(Cal)
Sen, C.J.1. This application has been made by one Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla claiming to be a contributory of Sonajuli Tea & Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ' appeltent company ') in an appeal preferred by the appellant-company against an order of winding up of the appellant-company passed by Roy Cbowdhury J., on the 13th of August, 1979, on an application made by Ashkaran Chatter Singh. The facts material for the purpose of this application may be noted.2. The appellant-company used to run the Premchand Jute Mills Ltd. as lessee of the said mills. The Premchand Jute Mills Ltd. made an application for the winding-up of the appellant-company on the 14th of November, 1976, on the ground that the appellant-company was unable to pay the amount of rent due and payable by the appellant-company and the amount of rent claimed in the said petition being C. P. No. 387 of 1976 was Rs. 1,92,000 with interest. The said winding-up petition was finally disposed of by an order passed by ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eastern Development Corpn.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: [1982]135ITR516(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. The assesses was originally assessed in the status of an unregistered firm relating to the assessment year 1957-58 on a total income of Rs. 19,739.3. The assessee thereafter made a disclosure of Rs. 10,000 as its income which had escaped assessment for the aforesaid assessment year. The ITO therefore, reopened the assessment under Section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and issued the relevant notice under Section 148 of the Act. In response to the said notice the assessee filed a return on March 11, 1970.4. In the aforesaid return under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee included Rs. 12,500 as hundi loan but failed to prove its genuineness. The ITO, therefore, added Rs. 12,500 as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. This order was passed on 12th March, 1970.5. In the course of reassessment proceedings the ITO was also satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income and, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Superintendence and Co. of India (P.) L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR327(Cal)
Deb, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum Rs. 50,000 paid to the two retiring directors was allowable as revenue expenditure on grounds of commercial expediency ? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, then, whether the liability to pay the sum arose during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 and was, therefore, deductible in the assessment for the said year ' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year involved is 1964-65, for which the relevant previous year commenced on June 1, 1962, and ended on May 31, 1963.3. The assessee claimed before the ITO that Rs. 50,000 paid to the two retiring directors was deductible in the assessment for the aforesaid year.4. The ITO found that 400 out of 600 shares of the assessee-company were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »