Kolkata Court September 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, (Central) Vs. Soorajmull Nagarmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-23-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Cal)8,[1981]129ITR169(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference the assessee was not represented before us. In order to determine this reference properly we requested Mr. R.N. Dutta to help us and appear as amicus curiae. Pursuant to our request he has appeared and made his submissions to this court. We express our gratitude for the help he has rendered.2. In this reference for the assessment year 1956-57, the following two questions have been referred to us :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of Rs. 80,491 was not a speculation loss and was incidental to the carrying on of the assessee's business and as such allowable as revenue expenditure ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the assessee maintained its books on the mercantile system, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability for Rs. 80,491 accrued and became ascertained only in 1955 when the claim was settled ...
Sachindra Nath Bose and anr. Vs. Jyoti Bikash Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal13
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd August, 1976 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 434 of 1976 affirming the Order No. 55 dated 24th April, 1976 passed by the learned Munsif in Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1976. The judgment-debtors are the appellants in the instant appeal and the said Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1976 arose out of an application made by the judgment-debtors under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia contending that the decree for eviction passed in Title Suit No. 137 of 1968 under the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act was null and void and as such the said decree was not executable. It appears that the landlords brought Title Suit No. 137 of 1968 against the appellants judgment-debtors Sachindra Nath Bose and Samarendra Nath Bose for recovery of khas possession of the disputed premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act after ev...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. A. Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR119(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This reference arises out of four applications dated February 11, 1972, made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-II, Calcutta, under Section 156(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1961-62 and 1964-65. Mrs. A. Ghosh was the assessee in these two years. But in a set of cases she was assessed in her personal capacity while in others she was the legal heir and representative of her deceased husband, Dr. A. Ghosh.2. Both Dr. and Mrs. A. Ghosh held shares in a public limited company, viz., Standard Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. This concern (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') is stated to have been started some time in1934 with whatever personal resources Dr. and Mrs. Ghosh had. Dr. Ghosh was the technical director and Mrs. Ghosh, a director of the company. The company undisputedly was nurtured by Dr. and Mrs. Ghosh. Dr. Ghosh carried on his research work on antibiotics and Mrs. Ghosh, who was also technically qualified, assi...
Subir Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. Md. Habibar Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal364,1980(2)CHN460,(1981)1CompLJ19(Cal),85CWN83
Anil K. Sen, J.1. These are the two revisional applications at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioners in Money Suit Nos. 20 of 1979 and 21 of 1979 and are directed against orders bearing the same date, namely, April 7, 1980, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, in the aforesaid two suits.By the orders impugned the learned Subordinate Judge had allowed the two applications filed by the defendants in the aforesaid two suits under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To appreciate the point at issue it would be necessary to refer to more or less undisputed facts shortly set out as follows.2. The two suits were filed oh August 8. 1979. The suits coming under the purview of Order 37 of the Code, summonses in Form IV Appendix B were issued on September 18, 1979, and such summonses were served on October 2, 1979. The Court being closed for the puja holidays from September 20, 1979 to October 22. 1979, the defendants entered appearance on October 23, 1979...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rupabani theatres P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Cal)293,[1981]130ITR747(Cal)
Saryasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to this court:' I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Explanation to that section, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the department had failed to prove concealment of income in regard to the sum of Rs. 26,000 and interest amounting to Rs. 1,096 by the assessee-company ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that apparently an artificial juridical person like a limited company is incapable of conscious concealment of income and it would be well nigh impossible for the department to prove the existence of mens rea in the case of a company and, hence, the company was not liable to penalty for concealment '2. This reference relates to the assessment for the assessment year...
Jyoti Bhusan Mukherjee Vs. Eastern Tea Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal192
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J. 1. This application has been taken out by the Eastern Tea Co. Ltd. and its directors, the defendants Nos. 1, 6 and 9 for an order that the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked and for stay of all further proceedings taken with this suit. It is the petitioner's case that the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants including the petitioners praying inter alia for a declaration that the investments made and/or maintained by the defendant company is in excess of the maximum provided under Section 372 of the Companies Act, 1956 hence those investments are illegal, wrongful, ultra vires the act, declaration that the defendants are not entitled to exercise their voting rights in respect of the said shares, direction for appointment of a receiver and also sale by the receiver of the investments, mandatory injunction directing the defendants for disposal of the said investments in accordance with the orders to be passed by this Cour...
Dr. Saroj Kumar Sen Vs. Dr. Kalyan Kanta Ray and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal374,85CWN73
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The petitioner has alleged that on the 16th August, 1959, he was married to the respondent No. 1, Devika Roy, according to the Hindu rites in Calcutta. After the marriage, two children were born. From April to November, 1969, while he lived in his quarters at Rishra, he had to leave Rishra for Calcutta in connexion with his official duties at 8 a.m. and return home at about 7.30 p.m. The co-respondent, Dr. Saroj Sen, is the Medical Officer of the Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India, where the petitioner is employed as Project Manager. Dr. Sen used to treat the members of his family from 1966 to 1969. On the morning of 6th November, 1969, all of a sudden he returned to Rishra. On that date, Dr. Sen committed adultery with his wife in that quarters. The two children were taken away by their 'Ayah' under the direction of Devika. So, he began to suspect them until to be sure about the same subsequently. Dr. Sen committed adultery with Devika from April, 1969, and ha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.B. Electric Mart P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Cal)267,[1981]128ITR276(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessment year involved is 1961-62. The assessee is a private limited company and the reference relates to the assessment year 1961-62. For this assessment year, the assessee-company instead of paying advance tax of Rs. 21,838 as demanded by a notice dated June 13, 1960, filed an advance tax estimate on January 11, 1961, showing the estimated total income at Rs. 5,500 and the advance tax payable thereon at Rs. 2,475. Subsequently, however, the return of income was filed showing a total income of Rs. 9,287 and the assessment was made on a total income of Rs. 55,658 (as revised in appeals). The ITO was, therefore, of the opinion that since the advance tax estimate was filed on January 11, 1961, i.e., after the end of the assessee's previous year on December 31, 1960, and the estimated total income in the advance tax estimate was shown at Rs. 5,500 only, as against Rs. 9,287 according to the assessee's own return of income subsequently filed as against Rs. 5...
Ramnugger Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR716(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee relates to the assessment year 1973-74, for which the previous year ended on 31st August, 1972. The assessee in the year under consideration was carrying on agricultural activity of growing sugarcane, manufacturing sugar and selling the same, etc. In respect of the sugarcane unit the claim of the assessee for allowing agricultural development allowance under Section 35C of the Act was disallowedby the ITO on the ground that the conditions laid down therein had not been fulfilled. The amount claimed was Rs. 3,16,855. 2. The said disallowance was also upheld by the AAC. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the AAC the assessee came in further appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the agricultural, development allowance was available to the assessee even if the assessee itself was a cultivator, grower or producer of the products as mentioned...
The Indian Economist Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Acharya Srimat Sarbeswa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal310
Ramendea Mohan Datta, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 14th January, 1976 passed by Sabya-sachi Mukharji, J. allowing amendment of the plaint in a suit for defamation.2. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the 9th Sub-Judge at Alipore in 24 Parganas on or about 4th July 1973 and was marked as Money Suit No. 18 of 1973. An application was made under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent 1865 on behalf of the defendants in the suit, being Matter No. 709 of 1973 of this Court and an order was made therein on 26th January 1974 whereby the suit was directed to be transferred from the Alipore Court to this Court for being tried in its extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The suit was then marked as Extraordinary Suit No. 12 of 1974 of this Court.3. In August 1975 an application for amendment of the plaint, which is the subject matter of this appeal herein, was filed in which Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. made the said order herein allowing the amendments as prayed for.4. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »