Kolkata Court May 1980 Judgments
Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central E ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS544D,1981(8)ELT37(Cal)
ORDERS.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th September, 1974 passed by Masud, J. By and under the said judgment and order Masud, J. held that pending applications filed by the respondents for assessment of Excise duty under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 shall be determined by the Excise Authorities in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the case of A.K. Roy and Anr. v. Voltas Limited reported in : 1973ECR60(SC) , that is to say on the basis of the wholesale cash price comprising manufacturing cost and manufacturing profits only. By, and under the said judgment and order Masud, J. disallowed the petitioner's claim for declaration that all assessments of Central Excise duty made by the respondents for the period 1961 till the date of the making of the application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant are null and void and refused to order reassessment of the same on the basis of the law laid down ...
Tag this Judgment!Champa Pictures Vs. Md. Ibrahim Chamoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal89
ORDERSalil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of a suit being Suit No. 1004 of 1979 (Md, Allias Chamoo v. M/s. Champa Pictures). 2. The admitted facts are that the respondent is a lessee of National Talkies situated at No. 12/3, Watgang Street, Kidderpore, Calcutta. The petitioner had transactions with the respondent by which it advanced loans to the respondent from time to time pursuant to an agreement dated the 1st of Feb., 1966. It appears that up to 30th of Jan., 1970, a sum of Rs 1,69,452.26 p. became due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. Thereafter, by an agreement dated the 4th of Feb., 1970, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent by which the respondent irrevocably agreed to give the petitioner exclusively business of supplying and exhibiting sound motion pictures at the said cinema house of the respondent with effect from 1st of Feb., 1970, for and during the entire period ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sabitri Bala Mallick and ors. Vs. Alak Ranjan Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal249,(1980)2CompLJ146(Cal)
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. 1. This Second miscellaneous appeal stems from a proceeding under Section 47 of the Civil P. C.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the instant appeal are as follows :--Fakir Chandra Pal, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents, instituted a Title Suit being No. 200 of 1964 in the file of Munsiff, Ghatal, seeking declaration of his title in respect of the lands described in the three schedules (Ka, Kha and Ga) of the plaint. He also prayed for confirmation of possession in respect of the lands described in schedules `Ka' and 'Kha' and recovery of possession in respect of schedule 'Ga' in the plaint, which is a part of 'Ka' schedule. The suit was decreed by the trial court on June 25, 1906. Satya Sadhan Mnlliek, the defendant No. 1 in the suit and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, preferred an appeal against the same and the learned subordinate Judge, First Class Court. Midnapur, allowed the appeal and remanded the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Cal)49,[1981]131ITR175(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The assessee is a limited company and the instant reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, read with Section 18 of the C. (P.) S.T. Act, 1964, relates to the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. For these assessment years, the assessee-company claimed before the ITO that in the computation of capital under Schedule II to the C. (P.) S.T. Act, 1964, the reserves for depreciation on investments amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs should be included in the capital computation for all the three years. Similarly, for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the assessee-company claimed that reserves for doubtful debts should be included in the capital computation. The ITO, however, did not accept this claim. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC. The AAC dealing with the said contention observed, inter alia, as follows:' The issue raised is the Income-tax Officer's not including the undermentioned reserves in the computation...
Tag this Judgment!Phani Bhusan Das Vs. Kenaram Bhuniya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal255
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiff has alleged that the disputed property belonged to Sridhar, Dharani and Gadadhar, who were brothers. In the C. S. Khatian, the property was erroneously recorded in their names as the shebait of one Santa Goswami Thakur. As a matter of fact, the property is a secular one. Sridhar died first leaving his son, Akshoy. The plaintiff purchased his 1/3rd share by a registered kobala dated 28-11-1941. Dharani had no son and his wife, Suchitra, became unchaste during his life time. She illegally married one Bepin Mondal. So, his brother, Gadadhar, inherited Dharani's share in the property. He left three sons, Surendra, Debindra and Netai. Surendra's son is Hrishikesh. On the 7th June, 1952, 2/3rds share of Deben-dra, Netai and Hrishikesh was sold to the plaintiff by registered sale deed and thus, he became the 16 annas owner of the property. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 colluded with one Bhuban Pal and obtained a fraudulent and inoperative kobala from Suchitra, un...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Metal Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1980
Reported in: [1982]133ITR130(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, two questions have been referred to this court by the Tribunal as directed by the court. The questions are as follows : 2. For the assessment years 1962-63 & 1963-64. ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the commission paid to the Industrial Finance Corporation of India for standing guarantor in respect of deferred payments made by the assessee for the purpose of capital equipments and the interest paid to the non-resident firm against such deferred payments were expenses of a revenue nature '3. For the assessment years 1964-65 & 1965-66. ' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission paid to the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and the Government of Rajasthan for standing guarantor in respect of deferred payments made by the assessee for the purchase of capital ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sutton and Sons Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR57(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court as directed by this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the land of the assessee at Tollygunj, which had been sold by the assessee, was agricultural land and fell outside the scope of the meaning of the words 'capital asset' in Section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the excess realisation on the sale of the said land was not chargeable to capital gain?'2. The assessment year involved is 1963-64 for which the relevant accounting year ended on 31st May, 1962. The assessee is a Sterling company incorporated in the United Kingdom and has branches in India. The business of the assessee is that of growing vegetables and flower seeds and selling the same. The assessee-company's head office in India is situated in Calcutta while it has farms and depots in Bangalore, Ranchi and Kashmir. The assessee owned a plot of land ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ashalata Pal Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal262
ORDERR.T. Pyne, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer having registration No. 3925 of West Bengal State Lottery for selling West Bengal State Lottery tickets and she carries on such business in her retail shop situated at No. 89 Bipin Behari Ganguly Street, Calcutta-12, According to the petitioner the terms and conditions of such dealership and agency are that the Director of State Lottery would sell and the dealer would purchase such number of lottery tickets as may be requisitioned by the dealer, on payment of full price thereof according to the face value of such tickets. After such purchase the dealer would become the absolute owner or all tickets so purchased by him/her and would be entitled to sell and transfer them from his/her shop to his/her customers by realising the face value. It is stated by the petitioner that the tickets so purchased by the dealer but which would remain unsold by him are not returnable to the Directorate of the State Lottery. The dealer's remunerati...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sulekha Bairagi Vs. Prof. Kamala Kanta Bairagi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal370,(1980)2CompLJ82(Cal),84CWN716
B.N. Maitra, J.1. Petitioner has asked for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery and alternatively for judicial separation on account of her cruelty. His allegation is that in the middle of May, 1959, he was married to Sulekha, respondent No. 1, according to Hindu rites. Since then they have been residing at Bangaon. He is a professor of Dina Bandhu Maha Vidyalaya College of that place. From the beginning she had no liking for him. During the last four years the relations between the two became strained. She often used to go out of the house with co-respondent No. 2, Biswanath. On the 13th September, 1970, at about 10 p. m., he went to his house, opened the closed door for it was unbolted from within and found that Sulekha was in a compromising position with Biswanath. At his sight Sulekha became very angry and gave orders to Biswanath to do away with him. Biswanath picked up the bolt of the door and struck him on the head with it. He suffered grievous hurt, informed the police ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, f Ward and ors. Vs. Khandelwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1980
Reported in: [1982]134ITR628(Cal)
A.N. Sen, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by Ramendra Mohan Datta J., on the 25th August, 1975. The learned judge for reasons recorded in his judgment allowed the writ p'eti-tion filed by the respondent, Khandelwal Brothers Private Ltd., and quashed the notice dated the 28th February, 1972, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1963-64.2. The facts and circumstances have been fully and correctly set out in the judgment of the learned trial judge who has also noted in his judgment the various contentions which were raised before him. The learned judge has also considered a number of decisions in his judgment. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned judge came to the conclusion that, in the instant case, there were no materials before the ITO, which could lead the ITO to form the belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment for failure...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »