Kolkata Court February 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Jute Mills Association
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Cal)198,[1982]134ITR68(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 depreciation debited in the accounts was ' expenditure incurred ' by the assessee within the meaning of Section 44A of the I.T. Act, 1961, and should be deducted in computing the deficiency under the said section for the assessment year 1969-70 '2. The assessee is the Indian Jute Mills Association and the relevant assessment year is 1969-70, corresponding previous year being the year ended on 31st December, 1968. The assessee had income from interest on securities, income from jute chronicle and interest. The assessee's total income from these sources was Rs. 98,835. Before the ITO, by a letter dated 6th October, 1961, the assessee claimed the benefit of deduction of deficiency for Rs. 19,934 in accordance with the provisions of Section 44A o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Badri Prasad Bianwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: [1982]133ITR433(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60 for which the corresponding accounting period is 2015 R.N. The assessee had filed the original return on the 12th June, 1961, declaring a loss of Rs. 41,935. The ITO issued a notice under Section 23(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in response to which the assessee's authorised representative appeared and produced the books of account, which were examined by the ITO on 20th August, 1963. On 11th September, 1963, the ITO passed an order fixing the date of hearing on 13th September, 1963, but there was no entry in the order sheet of that date. But the ITO passed an entry in the order sheet to the effect 'assessed at loss of Rs. 8,851'. Subsequently, the ITO had reason to believe that the assessee had not disclosed the true and correct facts at the time of original assessment and as such income had escaped assessment. Hence, he reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. He issued...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Narayan Saha Vs. Durgapada Karmakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal352,85CWN840
ORDERChittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. The landlord opposite party has instituted a suit against the present petitioner in the 2nd Court of the Munsif, Katwa for ejecting him from the suit premises, inter alia, on the allegation that the defendant-petitioner had committed default in payment of rents from Magh, 1375 B. S. to Shravan, 1385 B. S. and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted under Section 13 (1) (i) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. He has also prayed for eviction of the defendant tenant on the ground that he reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and also for building and rebuilding within the meaning of Clauses (f) and (if) of Section 13 (1) of the said Act. 2. After entering appearance in the said suit on December 19, 1978, the defendant tenant made a combined application under Sub-sections (2) and (2-A) (b) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. He, inter alia, alleged that a part of the arrears of rent had alre...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Belliss and Morcom (i.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)76,[1982]136ITR481(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 justified in holding that for the purposes of allowing a deduction under Section 80-I the words 'such profits' occurring in that section mean 'the profits and gains attributable to any priority industry' without deducting therefrom any loss arising in any other business activity under Section 70 or Section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This reference relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1971-72. The ITO dealt with the claim for deduction under Section 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961. He observed in his order, inter alia, as follows :'Deduction : Under Section 80-I Theassessee claimed relief Under Section 80-I amounting to Rs. 1,23,301 calculated @ 8% on a profit of Rs. 15,53,761 attributable to priority industry. But the gross total income was determi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Khalique
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR469(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The question referred to us under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as follows : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Sections 210, 212 and 218 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount in default for which the penalty could be imposed was Rs. 9,505 and not Rs. 32,275?'2. The assessee is an individual and the reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee was served with the notice of demand under Section 210 read with Section 156 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on 22nd November, 1971, requiring the assessee to pay by way of advance tax Rs. 64,549. The first instalment came to Rs. 32,275 which became due on or before 15th December, 1971, and was not paid by the assessee. The ITO, therefore, imposed a penalty under Section 221 of the I.T. Act, 1961, by an order dated. 5th February, 1973, amounting to Rs. 3,200. 3. It appears to us, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Shew Ranjan Prosad Shaw Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1100
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The short question of law that falls for determination in this Rule is whether the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of paragraph 2(a) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1971 (hereinafter deferred to as the Order). The question arises in this way.2. On May 25, 1973 some officers of the District Enforcement Branch raided the go down of the petitioner and found a stock of 20 quintals of pulses (Maskalai) in 20 gunny bags but no list indicating the opening stock of such commodity and retail selling price thereof was displayed as required under paragraph 3 of the Order. The petitioner, on demand, also failed to produce books of accounts in respect of the said commodity. A prosecution was launched against him under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules 1971 for violating the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Order. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Cooch Behar, who tried the case, found the petitioner guilt...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Kothari Vs. the Superintendent, Presidency Jail and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ660
Nirmal Chandra Mukherji, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ and/or order, or orders, and/or directions in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the matter of an order bearing No. F. No. 673/20/80-Cus. VIII passed by Shri B.B. Gujral, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue), New Delhi on 28th October, 1980 in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The said order was passed on the basis of which the petitioner Shri Satyanarayan Kothari has been detained in Presidency Jail, Calcutta. It is the case of the petitioner that he carries on bona fide business in Textiles and Hosiery goods in Barabazar at Calcutta. That on 9th Nov., 1980 some officers of the Custom came to his house and enquired of him. The petitioner at that time was asleep and could not attend the officers who came ...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Kumar Bag and ors. Vs. Santi Kumar Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal320,85CWN453
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This application for revision is directed against the order passed by Shri A. K. Dutta (II), Subordinate Judge, Midnapore, allowing the plaintiff-opposite party's prayer for mandatory injunction and directing the petitioners to remove the structures and constructions raised by them in violation of the Court's order of injunction and thereby reversing the order passed by Mun-sif, Additional Court, Tamluk in other Suit No. 144 of 1965 (subsequently renumbered as other Suit No. 80 of 1968).2. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed the other Suit No. 144 of 1965 on 12th April, 1965 in the First Court of Munsif at Tamluk under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of the suit lands from the defendants-petitioners.On 2nd June, 1965 the Court passed an interim order of injunction directing the petitioners to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit lands. On 16th July, 1965 the said interim order of injunction was made absolute. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak Basu Vs. Loch Lomond Lodge (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal428
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The plaintiff is the Receiver appointed in Suit No. 1683 of 1964 (Sitaram Dehi v. Basdeo Dehi & Ors.) inter alia, over premises No. 13, Pretoria Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises).2. M/s. Loch Lomond Lodge (P) Ltd., the defendant, was a monthly tenant of the said premise's at a rent of Rs. 885.50 per month payable according to the English Calendar.3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the defendant for eviction on the grounds of wrongful addition and alteration to the premises and wrongful sub-letting. The plaintiff also claims mesne profits and damages.4. The plaintiff alleges that since the institution of this suit a number of challans in respect of rent deposited by the defendant have not been received from the Rent Controller Calcutta between January 1968 till October 1972 and that the defendant has not also made any deposit of rent in this Court -- during the said period.5. It is contended that the deposits of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Cal)204,[1982]134ITR219(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 a part of the interest amounting to Rs. 6,769 paid by the assessee on bank overdraft account as relatable to payment of advance tax was not an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's business income '2. This reference arises in respect of the assessment year 1970-71, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31st of December, 1969.3. The assessee had an overdraft account with the bank, On 12th December, 1969, i.e., a few days before the end of the assessee's accounting year on 31st December, 1969, the account showed a debit balance of Rs. 1,39,412. The assessee paid an advance tax of Rs. 18,05,000 on 15th December, 1969, which increased the overdraft to Rs. 14,63,593 by 31st December, 1969. The ITO holding that the payment o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »