Kolkata Court May 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brijlal Lohia and Mahabir Prosad Khemka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Cal)163,[1980]124ITR485(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference for the assessment year 1963-64, the following question has been referred to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the words ' every month during which the default continued ' appearing in the said section refer only to a month during the whole of which the default continued and not also to a month during only a part of which the default continued '2. The assessee is the executor of the estate of K. L. Lohia, deceased. There was a little delay in the filing of the return of income and the period of the delay was more than one month but less than two months. The ITO was not satisfied with the assessee's explanation for the delay and imposed a penalty Under Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the basis of the period of default of two months. The penalty thus came to Rs. 6,170. Again...
In Re: Bharat Tea Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ex Parte: Kundanlal Sahani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal151
ORDERSalil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application by a creditor for condonation of delay and recording the death of one of the judgment-debtors Kishenlal Sahani and for an order directing the other debtor to file the schedule of affairs with the Official Assignee forthwith and the Official Assignee be directed to sell the premises No. 67/7, Main Rohtak Road also known as New Rohtak Road, Karolbag, New Delhi and for other consequential reliefs.2. It appears that in August, 1963 the petitioner as a creditor instituted a suit being Suit No. 1364 of 1963 under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 30.058.06 and for interest, receiver, injunction and cost. The said suit was based on 6 hundis drawn by the firm of Bharat Tea Co. by Kishenlal Sahani alias Krishanlal Sahani in favour of the said creditor and the said hundis were accepted by the said Kishenlal Sahani. On 24th Jan., 1964, this Court passed the decree for Rs. 30,058.06 with interest on the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Vs. Shalimar Tar Products (1935) L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Cal)133,[1981]127ITR86(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Calcutta, relates to the assessment year 1965-66 and the question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,50,000 described as reserve for pension and the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 described as reserve for roofing repairs in the balance-sheet of the company were reserves within the meaning of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964?'2. The Surtax Officer treated the following two amounts as reserves and computed the capital of the assessee-company under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964:Rs.(i) Reserve for pensions3,50,000(ii) Reserve for roofingrepairs3,00,0003. The Commissioner was of the view that the Surtax Officer had wrongly included the above two items for computing the capital under the C. (P.) S...
Lalita Jabbar Vs. Competent Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1980
Reported in: [1982]133ITR389(Cal)
C.K. Banerji, J. 1. Premises No. 7/3, Burdwan Road, contains an area of one bigha, one cottah, eight chittaks and forty square-feet of land with a two-storeyed building built on a portion thereof which was leased out in June, 1967, by the then owners, Rabindranath Roy and Sudhindranath Roy, to M/s. W. S. Cresswell & Co. P. Ltd., at a rent of Rs. 1,000 per month and a further sum of Rs. 500 per month payable by the lessee as hiring charges of fixtures and fittings supplied by the lessors. The said lease was subject to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The said premises was occupied by Sayeed Jabbar, a director of W. S. Cresswell & Co. P. Ltd., the husband of the petitioner, and the petitioner with her husband and other members of the family resided therein.2. By a deed of conveyance dated 24th November, 1972, the petitioner purchased an undivided half-share of the said premises from the said Rabindranath Roy at or for the price of Rs. 1 lakh of which Rs. 10,0...
Rasiklal Jivanlal Shah and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Cal)176,[1982]133ITR476(Cal)
C.K. Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioners Nos. 3 to 7 along with Kantilal Jivanlal Shah and Manganlal Chhaganlal Shah, both since deceased, were partners of M. Ambica Cold Storage, a partnership firm constituted on the 23rd April, 1958, and registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The firm has since been dissolved. The case of the petitioners is that the firm commenced business in the middle of February, 1959, and was for the first time assessable and assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1960-61. The accounting period of the firm was the English calendar year ending on the 31st December of each such year and under the deed of partnership the first accounting period for completion of the accounts of the firm was 31st December, 1959. On the 25th July, 1958, the firm purchased 3 bighas 7 cottahs 5 chittaks more or less of land at Sheoraphully for Rs. 19,857.19, and on the 25th April, 1961, it purchased further 1 bigha 5 cottahs 7 chittacks of adjacent land for Rs. 10,225. Althoug...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-ii) Vs. General Investment Co. Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Cal)282,[1981]131ITR366(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the capital gains arising from the sale by the assessee of 1,600 bonus shares of Hastings Mills Ltd., Rs. 41,200 should be allowed as the cost of the said shares '2. The assessment year involved, as we have mentioned before, is the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee purchased 2,000 shares of M/s. Hastings Mills Ltd. in the year 1948 at the rate of Rs. 103 per share. The entire holding of 2,000 original shares were sold by the assessee on February 7, 1959, at the rate of Rs. 104 per share. Before this transaction, it has to be mentioned that in the year 1951, the assessee received 2,000 bonus shares in the ratio of one bonus share for each ordinary share. In respect of the sale made on February 7, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›