Kolkata Court March 1981 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.
Sm. Ranjani Bala Rakshit Vs. Biswanath Rakshit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal189,85CWN606
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This revi-sional application is at the instance of the plaintiff of T. S. No. 18 of 1967 of the 3rd Court of learned Subordinate Judge at Howrah. The suit is for partition upon a declaration that a document purported to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants 3, 4 and 5, dated the 29th July, 1955 is fraudulent, collusive and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The specific allegations in regard to that document, we shall come to hereafter in some details. The suit was decreed in a preliminary form by the Ld. trial Judge. Being aggrieved, defendants 3, 4 and 5 preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 88 of 1978 of the 2nd Court of the Ld. Additional District Judge, Howrah. The Ld. appellate Judge, instead of entering into the merits of the appeal made an order of remand under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code. He framed an additional issue as follows:-- 'Is the suit so far as the Kha schedule property is concerned properly classified for valuation?' ...
Sanchaita Investments and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal157
ORDERT.K. Basu, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act carrying on business as financiers and investors and has its principal office and/or place of business at Nos. 5 and 6, Fancy Lane, Calcutta,2. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are partners along with one Swapan Kumar Guha of the petitioner No. 1 firm and are citizens of India.3. In its business of financiers and investors, the petitioner firm accepts loans and/or deposits from all kinds of persons for different periods repayable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.4. Under the terms of the deposit, the depositors have the right to withdraw the sum deposited with the firm at any time before the expiry of the original period of deposit in the case, however, of such premature withdrawal, the depositor loses interest of 1% and is paid interest at the rate of 11% per annum. All such deposits as are made by depositors and accepted by the firm are repaid by the firm with stipulated...
Stadmed Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR361(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant, Stadmed P. Ltd., has challenged the propriety of the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji J., whereby the learned judge has made the rule nisi obtained by the Commissioner, West Bengal-IV, Calcutta, on his application under Article 226 of the Constitution, absolute.2. The appellant-company was an assessee under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. For the assessment year 1961-62, the appellant claimed exemption from tax of the remuneration paid by it to its two joint managing directors, namely, Rs. 1,500 per month and commission calculated at 1% on the sales paid to Shri A. Das and Rs. 750 per month and a commission of 1% on sales paid to Smt. Sujata Saha. Having regard to the legitimate business needs of the appellant-company and the benefit derived by or accruing to it from the payment of remuneration to its managing directors, the ITO held that the allowable remuneration should be Rs. 750 per month for each of the said two managing directors. As regar...
Sudesh Chandra Talwar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)310,[1982]137ITR483(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, the following 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 in the instant case the land-cum-building method was the most appropriate method of valuation ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 be in the negative, whether the correct method of valuation would be rental method based on the actual rent received from the property ?' 2. In order to appreciate the questions it would be relevant to refer to certain facts. The assessment years involved are 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 for which the respective valuation dates were 31-3-64, 31-3-65, 31-3-66, 31-3-67, 31-3-68 and 31-3-69. The question of valuation of the property at premises No. 8, Dover Park, Calcutta, on the respective valuation dates was involved in the appeals before the Tribunal leading to the present reference. The...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Darsananand Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)57
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - In this reference u/s 256 (1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) he Tribunal is right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 10,500 levied on the assessee for the asst. yr. 1964-65 ?'2. The assessee is a company. Its main source of income is from house property and to a certain extent from the letting out of land, the asst. yr. 1964-65. The relevant accounting year is the financial year ending on 31-3-1964. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO inquired of the assessee about the source of cash credits amounting to Rs. 35,000. It was stated by the assessee that the assessee was negotiating to purchase the plot of land through its Solicitor and the said sum of Rs. 35,000 was taken on loan from one Kalulal Mulchand. Sri Mulchand Chhabra, proprietor of M/s. Kalulal Mulchand appeared before ...
Sm. Nandarani Bose and anr. Vs. Ranchhoddas Muldas Ramanuj and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal275
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This Rule was obtained by the judgment-debtors-petitioners in Money Execution Case No. 10/77 and the order challenged is the order dated April 12, 1979, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Alipore. 2. The decree-holder opposite party instituted a money suit in the Original Side of this Court as against the present petitioners and the pro forma opposite party Badal Chandra Bose for recovery of his dues on promissory notes executed in his favour. In that suit the petitioners failed to avail of the conditional leave granted to them to defend the suit when they failed to furnish security as directed by the Court. There was an ex parte decree which was transferred by the High Court to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge for execution. This led to the Money Execution Case No. 10/77 as aforesaid. 3. In this execution case the judgment-debtors-peiitioners filed an application described as one under Section 36 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act though the ...
V.P. Samtani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR693(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukhakji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding that there was clear concealment of income of Rs. 1,45,000 and Rs. 1,24,881 to attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the amount of Rs. 1,24,881 having been declared by the assessee in Part F of the return, was the Tribunal right in law in holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) were attracted in respect thereof?' 2. It appears that this reference relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1962-63. For this year the assessee filed a return on June 26, 1964, declaring a total income of Rs. 15,235. In Part F of the return the assessee showed a sum of Rs. 1,24,881 as receipt exempt from tax under Section 10(3) of the I.T. Act, 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kinnison Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Cal)237,[1982]135ITR62(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessment year involved is 1963-64. The assessee in its accounts disclosed the reserves in the beginning of the year at Rs. 46,11,711 and a loss of Rs. 21,89,282. In the accounts, the assessee had not adjusted the loss against the reserves. In the balance-sheet for the preceding year, however, the loss had been adjusted and the reserves had been shown at Rs. 24,22,429. The plea of the assessee before the ITO was that the reserves should betaken at Rs. 46,11,711 as shown in the accounts of the assessee and not at Rs. 24,22,429 as shown in the balance-sheet as on 31st March, 1962. The assessee's contention was that the loss had been adjusted in the balance-sheet as it was required under the provisions of the Companies Act, but the assessee's accounts disclosed the reserves at Rs. 46,11,711 and that, according to the provisions of the S.P.T. Act of 1963, the reserves were to be taken as shown in the accounts and not as shown in the. balance-sheet. The ITO di...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harinkhola Ice and Cold Storage Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: [1982]134ITR540(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 the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in respect of the second unit of the cold storage for the assessment year 1970-71 '2. The assessee is a company and the relevant assessment year is 1970-71, corresponding previous year being the calendar year which ended on December 31, 1970. The relevant assessment was completed by the ITO by taking the status of the assessee-company as a company in which thepublic were not substantially interested. However, in the body of the assessment order there was no discussion either on this issue or on the other relating to the rebate under Section 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of the new chamber in the cold ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Duncan Bros. and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Cal)240,[1983]140ITR335(Cal)
Sabyasachi 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 : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the premium paid by the assessee to Nursing Home Benefit Association in respect of the medical insurance policy taken on the individual life of each employee resulted directly or indirectly in the provision of any benefit or amenity or perquisite within the meaning of Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and should be taken into account in computing the amount disallowable under the said section 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computing the amounts disallowable under Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the amount of salary payable to the employees should be reduced by the recoveries made from the managed companies on account of the services rendered to such comp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »