Kolkata Court August 1980 Judgments

Sm. Kishori Bala Mondal Vs. Tribhanga Mondal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1980Cal334,1980(2)CHN278

D.C. Chakravorti, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Asansol whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court at Asansol were modified.2. Sm. Kishori Bala Mondal, the appellant, instituted against the respondents a title suit praying for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession.3. The facts relevant for purpose of this appeal are as follows:The suit land originally belonged to one Krishna Majhi who died about 42/43 years ago leaving his second wife Rati Bala as his sole heiress. The plaintiff Sm, Kishori Bala is the daughter of said Krishna Majhi by his second wife said Rati Bala. The first wife of Krishna Majhi pre-deceased him. On the death of Rati Bala, according to the plaintiff, the latter as the sole heiress inherited the suit property and has since then been possessing the same. Krishna Ma...

Kusum Products Ltd. Vs. S.K. Sinha, Ito

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1980]126ITR804(Cal)

P.C. Barooah, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Kusum Products Ltd. (hereinafter 'the company '), has its registered office at 9, Brabourne Road, Calcutta. It carries on business in the manufacture and sale of vanaspati and other products. On July 30, 1974, the company filed a return of income for the assessment year 1974-75, under the signature of one Kundanmal Lakhotia, who at the material time was the accountant and also the constituted attorney of the company.2. On March 27, 1979, the opposite party, Sri S. K. Sinha, ITO, Central Circle-X, Calcutta, filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, against the company and Kundanmal Lakhotia alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). It was alleged, inter alia, that in the aforesaid return the company had shown a total profit in its business amounting to Rs. 66,62,114 from which a total amount of deduction amounting to Rs. 12,89/1...

Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-iv Vs. Smt. Chitra Mukherjee.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Cal)254,[1981]127ITR252(Cal)

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J. - The assessment year involved is 1962-63. The assessee failed to submit its return under s. 39(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, within time. Sri Ramanathan, the ITO, started penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) against the assessee for late filing of the return and issued a notice dated February 23, 1967, to the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. The said notice was served on the assessee on March 17, 1967. The assessee did not offer any explanation in response to that notice. Thereafter, Sri Ramanathan was transferred and he was succeeded by Sri N. K. Roy. The assessee states that he had no knowledge of succession and there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had knowledge. The successor-ITO proceeded with the matter from the stage at which his predecessor had left it without issuing any fresh notice either under s. 129 or under s. 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,051.The assessee, being aggrieved by the sa...

Arbind Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Warner A. Bock K.G.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1981Cal18

ORDERSalil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, inter alia for determination of the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement and a declaration that noarbitration agreement has been entered into between the parties and injunction restraining the respondent and his agents and servants from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings before Indo-Ger-man Chamber of Commerce on the basis of the claim contained in the letter dated the 29th of November, 1979, and for other incidental reliefs.2. The petitioner moved the application on the 22nd of April, 1980, and obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondent and his agents, servants and assigns from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings before the Indo German Chamber of Commerce on the basis of the claim contained in the letter dated the 29th of November, 1979. being annexure 'D' to the petition. Returnable date was fixed on the 16th day of April, 1930....

Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Vs. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1983]139ITR414(Cal)

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following three questions have been referred to this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was eligible for relief under Section 25(4) of the said Act in respect of income from property ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim in the first instance set off of the business loss against income from property under Section 24(1) of the said Act, and thereafter to claim relief under Section 25(4) of the said Act in respect of interest on securities, speculation profits and dividends ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that relief under Section 25(4) of the said Act was available to the assessee in respect of super-tax ?' 2. The assessee is a firm. The proceedi...

Collector of Customs and ors. Vs. Om Prakash Jalan and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1980Cal341,85CWN25

A.N. Sen, C.J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment to be delivered by my learned brother in this appeal. My learned brother has fully set out all the relevant facts in his judgment. In his judgment, my learned brother has also considered the arguments which were advanced from the Bar and also the various decisions which were cited in course of the arguments. In this judgment, I do not propose to reproduce the same. I am in entire agreement with the views expressed by my learned brother in his judgment.2. The only question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether Argenti Nitras I. P. which is a drug and is recognised as such in Indian Pharmacopoeia, comes within Item 55 in Part A of Sch. I to the Exports (Control) Order. The said Item No. 55 in Part A reads 'Silver salt. Silver Chemicals and compounds with more than 50% silver contents'. The goods listed in Part A are not normally allowed to be exported and they are commonly known as banned items. Item 55 was...

Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Cal)250,[1981]132ITR279(Cal)

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this matter after hearing the parties we had, on the 8th April, 1980, delivered our judgment. Before, however, the judgment could be signed, the learned advocate for the revenue drew our attention to a decision of ours in Income-tax Reference No. 241 of 1970, India Tube Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, judgment delivered on 23rd August, 1974 (unreported) (since reported in : [1981]132ITR293(Cal) . The matter was thereafter set down for further hearing and after considering the arguments afresh we proceed to deliver this judgment.2. In this reference made by the Tribunal, in compliance with an order under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court :'Whether there were any material before the Tribunal to hold that the amount of the dividend proposed on 26th May, 1967, and ratified by the shareholders on 29th June, 1967, became a known liability as on 1st January, 1967, and whether the Tribunal's finding in this respect ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.L. Bajoria

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1981]129ITR772(Cal)

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 67(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 1,44,000 was an allowable deduction in computing the share of the assessee in the firm of M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull for the assessment year 1966-67 '2. The question arises out of the assessment for the assessment year 1966-67. The total income of the assessee for this year was computed at a figure of Rs. 95,482 which had included a sum of Rs. 76,804 for rate purpose. Rs. 76,804 represented the assessee's net share of profit in the unregistered firm of M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull in which the assessee had one anna six pies share. The assessee's gross share of profit in the said firm came to Rs. 2,20,804 and the ITO reduced it by Rs. 1,...

Ramani Mohan Industries Private Limited Vs. Second Industrial Tribunal ...

Court: Kolkata

ORDERB.C. Basak, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is praying for appropriate writs directed against an Order of Reference made and dated 4th February, 1978, the order of the Tribunal dated 27th June, 1979 and an award made thereon on the 29th October, 1979.2. The facts of this case which are relevant for the purpose of this case are shortly as follows :-The petitioner-company carries on the business of grinding minerals such as lime stone, dolomite and china clay from lump to powder. According to the petitioner from 1973 the petitioner's business has been adversely affected by various factors. Some incidents of the same have been given in the petition. According to the petitioner it was compelled to declare a lay-off in its factory at Belghoria with effect from the 25th of March, 1976, which was challenged by the workers of the petitioner. Thereafter there was a memorandum of settlement signed on the 1st June, 1976. It is alleged th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Guest Keen Williams Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1981]129ITR829(Cal)

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 226(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 computation of super-tax made by the Income-tax Officer is, in law, correct ?'2. The ITO computed the total income at Rs. 2,18,81,633, in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule in Part 2, Para. D of the Finance Act, 1964. The ITO calculated the super-tax chargeable from the company on the whole of the total income at 55%. In accordance with prov. (iii)(B), the ITO allowed rebate of 26% on Rs. 11,06,977 being that part of the total income as was attributable to the manufacture of articles specified in the list in Part IV of the Schedule and at 20% on the balance of the total income amounting to Rs. 2,07,62,199. Thus, against the corporation tax of Rs. 1,20,29,946.90 calculated at the rate of 55% of the total income, a rebate in corporation tax was calculated at Rs. 44...