Kolkata Court June 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.
Panchanan Mondal and anr. Vs. Sm. Sulata Roy Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal325
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiffs have alleged that plaintiff No. 1 is husband of plaintiff No. 2. By a sale deed dated 18-12-1955, her husband purchased .7 decimals of land out of the plot No. 70 together with the structures standing thereon from one Bholanath Saha. Plaintiff No. 1 purchased two cottahs of land from the plot No. 73 from defendant by a kobala dated 4th July, 1959. The adjacent plot No. 71 and the remaining portion of the plot No. 73 belong to defendant and they lie to the west of the plaintiffs' land. Defendant had a small ditch on her land and there was a private passage to the east of that ditch. To the east of that ditch the plaintiffs' land is located. On that land the plaintiffs have a wall. The parties are on strained relations. With a view to causing mischief to the plaintiffs, the defendant deepened that ditch and converted it into a tank by steeply carrying out the excavation. As a result of such steep excavation, the lateral support of the plaintiffs' wall an...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-ii Vs. Bhupinder Singh Atwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Cal)291,[1981]128ITR67(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with the assessment year 1970-71, and 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 45 and Section 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of transfer of a capital asset was involved in the receipt of money by the assessee from the firm as a retiring partner and that no-capital gains tax was chargeable on the profit, if any, arising to the retiring partner from the receipt of such money '2. In order to appreciate the question it is necessary to refer to certain facts. The assessee and two of his brothers along with others were partners of a firm styled as M/s. G. S. Atwal & Co. The assessee had 13% share, one of his brothers had 13% share and another brother of the assessee had 9% share in the said firm. It was under the deed ...
Smt. Nirmala Bala Dasi and anr. Vs. Sudarsan Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal258
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for specific performance of contract, alternatively for injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent, in short, is as follows : Abhoy Pada Jana was the owner of a holding comprising an area of 62 acre and recorded in district settlement Khatian No. 212 of Mouza Agunshi Bhunera. Abhoy Pada died leaving behind six sons, namely, Rameswar, Prankrishna, Harekrishna, Bharat, Kedar and Akhil as his heirs. Rameswar inherited 08 acre of the said property and made a gift of the same in favour of his second wife Nirmala Bala Jana (defendant No. 1) by a registered deed dated March 31, 1946. Nirmala Bala Jana instituted Title Suit No. 215 of 1961 in the Court of the Munsiff, Uluberia against Sudarshan Jana (the plaintiff), the pro forma defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and one Basudev Jana in respect of the said land and structures thereon. The suit was ultimately compromised between the parties and it was stipulated in the solena...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Nirmal Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Cal)170,[1981]128ITR593(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 64(3) of the E.D. Act, 1953, the. following questions have been referred to this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the trust came into effect during the lifetime of the deceased ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the deceased resided in one of the trust properties before his death, the Tribunal is right in holding that there was no reservation of interest by the deceased in the property within the meaning of Section 12(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the deed of trust, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the trust did not have amongst its purposes the maintenance of the sons of the deceased ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in la...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radha Nagar Cold Storage (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Cal)166,[1980]126ITR66(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:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee-company was engaged in the processing of goods and was accordingly an industrial company within the meaning of Section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968, or under Section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1969 ?'2. The assessee-company has been engaged in the business of running a cold storage plant. Its income consists of charges collected from the growers of the potato for allowing them to store their products inside the assessee's plant in order to preserve these from perishing and keeping them in marketable condition. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. For these two assessment years, the ITO had levied tax at 65% on the basis that the assessee was not an industrial company within the mean...
C. Kant and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Cal)164,[1980]126ITR63(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessee, M/s. C. Kant & Co., is a partnership firm consisting of four partners. In the course of assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed cash credits in the assessee's books of account in the names of six parties totalling in all to Rs. 77,500. Enquired about the nature and source of these credits, the assessee explained that these were loans obtained from those parties and produced letters of confirmation in respect of this contention. The ITO found that the credits were not verifiable and that the letters of confirmation alone did not establish the genuineness of the loans. The ITO, further, observed that the capacity of the alleged creditors to advance the loans in question was not proved. Hence, he held the sum of Rs. 77,500 as the assessee's income from other sources and he also disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,996 claimed as interest on the said deposits. The assessee made an appeal before the AAC. The AAC, in view of Section 68 of the Act, upheld the ITO'...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.B. Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1980
Reported in: [1980]124ITR674(Cal)
Sabyasacht 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 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 700 being a part of the house rent paid by the assessee against his share income from the firm under Section 38 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The assessment year involved is 1971-72, The assessee is a partner in the firm of chartered accountants known as M/s. Price Waterhouse Peat & Co. His share of income from the above firm during the year under consideration was Rs. 62,384. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 700 under Section 38(1) for the use of a part of the dwelling house and Rs. 2,400 out of the part of car expenses under Section 37(1) as having been incurred for the purpose of earning his share income from the above firm. The ITO disallowed the assessee's claim without assigning ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›