Kolkata Court April 1980 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Vs. Hindusthan Motors Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR210(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we have been referred two questions for two different years which are as follows :For the assessment year 1965-66 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the provisions contained in Para. F read with items (10) and (21) of Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to rebate of tax at the higher rate of 35% on its profits and gains attributable to the manufacture or production of all the automobile ancillaries including those utilised by it in its own manufacture of cars for the assessment year 1965-66 ?' For the assessment year 1966-67 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 80E read with items (10) and (20) of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is right in holding that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajaram Pannalal and Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Cal)85,[1981]127ITR679(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with two assessment years, namely, the assessment years 1957-58 and 1961-62 for which the corresponding accounting periods were 2012-13 and 2016-17, Dewali years, respectively. The assessee is a registered firm with four partners who are all brothers having equal shares. The original assessment for the year 1957-58 was completed on 28th October, 1957. At the time of assessment, the assessee had shown certain cash credits in the name of different hundiwallas, as they have come to be known in income-tax jargon in this country. The ITO accepted the credits as genuine while making the original assessment for the year 1957-58. On the 3rd of February, 1966, the assessee filed a disclosure petition. In the said disclosure petition, the assessee had stated, inter alia, as follows :'That your petitioner-firm and its partners as already said have earned these incomes during the period 1949 to...
Tag this Judgment!Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Cal)77,[1981]130ITR351(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference, under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, the following questions have been referred to this court for answer ;'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the increase in liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 due to devaluation was not deductible in computing the assessee's business income ?2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the alternative claim of the assessee-company for development rebate under section 33 of the 'Income-tax Act, 1961, on Rs. 1,09,24,832 was not admissible under the provisions of the Act ?'2. In order to appreciate these questions, it is necessary to state certain facts. The assessee is a limited company and, as mentioned hereinbefore, the reference relates to the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pran Prasad.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Cal)32
: Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. - In this reference u/s 256 (1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the CIT (Central-II), Calcutta, the following question was referred by the Tribunal for our opinion.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of cl. 3(d) of the Agreements dated 27th December, 1966 between the assessee and M/s. F. W. Heligers & Co. (P) Ltd., and between the assessee and M/s. Bird & Co. (P) Ltd, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount of commission receivable by the assessee from the aforesaid two companies was Rs. 18,975/- for the asst. yr. 1971-72.'In this case the assessee is an individual and the relevant asst. yr. is 1971-72. The assessee had shown Rs. 18,975/- as commission received from M/s. F. W. Heilgers & Co. (P) Ltd. During relevant period the assessee was the Managing Director of two companies, viz., M/s. Bird & Co. (P) Ltd. and M/s. F. W. Heilgers & Co. (P) Ltd. In the course of the assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Budhlani Engineers (P) Limited Vs. Calcutta Metropolitan Development A ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal359,(1981)1CompLJ17(Cal)
ORDERSalil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 8 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is admitted that all the requirements under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, have not been complied with. Therefore, the present application under Section 8 is not maintainable but only the existence, validity and effect of the arbitration agreement be determined by this Court in this application.2. The facts of the present case are not in dispute as agreed to between Mr. Dipak Kumar Basu, appearing for the petitioner, and Dr. H. K. Saharay, appearing for the Respondent, that originally the petitioner entered into a contract for executing engineering work for C. M. P. O. and subsequently in 1974 C.M.P.O. ceased to exist and the same was taken over by C.M.D.A. and the petitioner completed his work under C.M.D.A. who made payments of running bills of the petitioner. Disputes having arisen for non-payment of the petitioner's bills, the petitioner is now desirous of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Cal)10,[1981]127ITR148(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this judgment, we propose to deal with these two references, because these relate to a common question relating to the same assessee for different assessment years. We shall, however, have to refer to a slight difference in the findings of the AAC in respect of one year, viz., the order passed by the AAC in Income-tax Reference No. 670A of 1972, which would be relevant and to which we shall refer at the relevant time.2. The assessee is a non-resident shipping company registered in Sweden. So far as the first reference in concerned, the assessment year under consideration is 1963-64, the corresponding accounting year being the year ending December 31, 1962. The ITO had not allowed depreciation on the two ships, viz., Bali and Mindore, which were acquired in the year 1941 on the ground that these two ships were acquired more than twenty years ago. The ITO computed the total income at Rs. 1,63,572. It will be relevant for the present purpose to refer to certai...
Tag this Judgment!Bidhu Bhusan Bhinya Vs. Ranajit Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal154
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directed against Order No. 54 dated 8-10-80, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No. 540 of 1976.2. The petitioner is a tenant under the opposite party in respect of certain structures, constructed by the landlord opposite party on Plots Nos. 375 and 382. These plots of land are by the side of Diamond Harbour Road, the rent of the premises being Rs. 80/- per month, the area of the tenanted structures being 30 ft. X 20 ft. The Plot No. 375 is the khas land of the Irrigation Department of the Government of West Bengal and it is a way side land. A portion of the said premises standing on Plot No. 375 and measuring 8 ft. X 20 ft. was demolished by the Government of West Bengal for keeping the space open by the road side and as a result of demolition the size of the tenanted structures as let out initially to the petitioner has been considerably reduced and the truncated structure is now standing on the floor area...
Tag this Judgment!Reform Flour Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Cal)25,[1981]132ITR184(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with two assessment years, being the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee-company maintained its accounts for the relevant previous years ended on 31st December, 1968, and 31st December, 1969, respectively. The ITO completed the two assessments by including Rs. 1,36,170 as interest receivable from M/s. Associated Industries (Assam) Ltd. on accrual basis as the system of accounting followed by the assessee-company so long was mercantile. In this connection, it will be relevant to refer to certain portions of the assessment orders. In the assessment order for the year 1968-69 dealing with business, it was mentioned, inter alia, as follows :' BusinessRs.Net profit as per profit & loss account AM40,504Bad debts -- unrealisable advance, not to be allowed as bad debt in the four of such advances does not conform to the provision of sec. 36(2)4,313'2. Again, dealing with inco...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwani Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal101
ORDERSalil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application for setting aside an award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. 2. Pursuant to a contract for execution of earth work in formation, bridge work, building and other miscellaneous works, a tender was called by the Union of India represented by the South Eastern Railway, and the petitioner's tender was accepted on the 17th of April, 1964, and a formal con-tract was entered into being dated 21st may, 1964. 3. It appears that disputes arose in respect of the said contract and the same was referred to arbitration after the respondents made an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act before this Court being Matter No. 66 of 1976 dated 20th August, 1976. Thereafter it appears several extensions were obtained for making the award. The last extension was obtained up to 30th Nov., 1979. It also appears that the arbitrator entered upon the reference pursuant to the said order of reference dated 20th August, 1976, by t...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, High Court Vs. Income-tax Officer, k Ward and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1980
Reported in: [1981]51CompCas572(Cal),[1981]130ITR790(Cal),[1981]6TAXMAN256(Cal)
Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application by the official liquidator for a direction on the I.T. authority to condone the payment of interest by the company (in liquidation) being Haralal Harendra Lal Roy Estate Ltd. (in liquidation) for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1976-77. The application is made with notices to all the contributories of the company. This is one of the instances which shows how, due to maladministration by the official liquidator, a solvent estate can be burdened with unnecessary liabilities particularly income-tax. Due to the internecine equable between the directors and shareholders of the company, the said company was wound up by an order dated the 20th of February, 1963. The company held a large number of immovable properties, particularly house properties in Calcutta, which fetched by way of monthly rent a considerable sum of money. Originally, Mr. S.N. Bhattacharya, since deceased, was appointed the official liquidator of the company and by a su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »