Kolkata Court April 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sardar Surjit Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR186(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, as directed by this court, the following three questions have been referred to this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the facts that the deed of declaration of trust was executed on 8th July, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the transfer of 300 shares of the assessee in M/s. Indra Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Sardar Baldev Singh Charitable Trust became effective on the 18th February, 1959, prior to the date of valuation for the assessment year 1959-60 and not from 8th July, 1959, being the date of execution of the said deed ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was competent to create charitable trust revokable by him after10 years and whether the trust purported to be created was a valid trust in law ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was ju...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Saha and ors. Vs. Amal Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal360
ORDERSalil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an order dated 23rd of August, 1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, 12th Court, Alipur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 75 of 1979 allowing the said appeal by setting aside the temporary order of injunction passed by M.K. Sen Gupta, Munsif, Second Court, Alipur, in Title Suit No. 531 of 1976. 2. The scope of the application is very limited as has been laid down in the Supreme Court decision in Managing Director (MIG) Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tewari, : (1972)ILLJ170SC in the following terms (at p. 77): 'In our opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The orderof the First Appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be i...
Tag this Judgment!Nitindra Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Subhas Ch. Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal319,85CWN915
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit for ejectment. Before the defendants' appearance, he filed an application for inspection of the disputed premises and also of premises No. 17/1, Lansdowne Terrace, Calcutta. The prayer was allowed by the learned Munsif. Hence this revisional application by the petitioners-defendants.2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the Court is not empowered under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue a commission for inspection for the purpose of collecting evidence. The cases of Padam Sen v. State ofU. P. in 0065/1960 : 1961CriLJ322 and of Institution of Engineers v. Bishnupada in : AIR1978Cal296 have been cited. It has been contended that the issues were not settled at that stage of the suit. The issue of the commission was thus a premature one. Reference has been made to Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code. It has been contended that after the issue...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chitpur Pressing Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1981
Reported in: [1982]133ITR426(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-III, Calcutta, the question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 41(1) and Section 86(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 56,916 received from M/s, Calcutta Hydraulic Press Association was not a profit chargeable to tax ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1964-65. The business of the assessee is of pressing of jute bales and the assessee is a member the Calcutta Hydraulic Press Association. A number of other concerns engaged in pressing of jute into bales are also members of that association. Each of the members contributed to the fund of the association at 9 paise per bale pressed. The subscription paid by the assessee had been allowed as deduction in the computation of the income of th...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Additional Member, Board of Rev ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC426(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The dealer, Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd., in this case is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, carrying on business in various textile machinery goods.2. While assessing the dealer for the year ending 31st December, 1960, under the said Act, the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range, by his order dated 14th March, 1964, included the sale proceeds of canteen and old machinery goods, disallowed the dealer's claim for deduction under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,28,689.00 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000 under Section 11(1) of the Act. Against the assessment order the dealer filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of. Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle, who, by his order dated 27th July, 1966, partly allowed the dealer's claim and modified the assessment order.3. Against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner the dealer filed a revision petition before the Additional Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhu Nath Sadhukhan Vs. Maghesh Kumar Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1102
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The principal question that falls for de- termination in this Rule is whether an application filed under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in a Civil Court is to be governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Another Question ancillary to the above, which also requires an answer is whether a revisional application against any order passed in such a proceeding, is to be made under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 439 of the Code. The questions arise in this wav.2. The parties hereto, who are three brothers, had been litigating in the 4th Court of the Additional District Judee, Alipore over an application for probate of the last will and testament of their mother. In that proceeding which was registered as O.S. No. 10 of 1971 Sri Meghesh Kumar Sadbukhan. one of the brothers and the opposite party No. I herein, filed an application on January 30. 1974 stat...
Tag this Judgment!Gayaram Shaw and anr. Vs. Tarak Nath Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal211,85CWN784
Anil K. Sen, J.1. The defendants in a suit for grant of Letters of Administration are the petitioners before us in this revisional application which is directed against an order dated December 6, 1980, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Howrah, in L. O. A. Suit No. 29 of 1965. By the order impugned the learned Judge has allowed an application for substitution on the death of the two original applicants for the grant. It will be necessary to refer to the material facts in order to appreciate the real controversy between the parties now before us and those may be set out briefly as follows.2 Sm. Raj Kumari Debi and Sm. Kunti Debi as residuary legatees applied for grant of Letters of Administration with copy of a Will annexed in respect of the estate of the deceased Sital Shaw. That was registered as L. O. A. Suit No. 91 of 1964 which had been renumbered as 29 of 1965. The prayer for grant was strongly contested by the present petitioners before us who challenged the Wi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Barick Screen Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: [1983]139ITR457(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian I.T, Act, 1922, as directed by this court, the following two 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 pre-requisite condition for initiating proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was not satisfied and that consequently the assessment made under Section 34(1)(a) of the said Act is liable to be cancelled 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made under Section 34(1)(a)of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was not valid on the ground that the assessee was assessed in the status of an association of persons ?' 2. To answer these questions, it must be stated that three brothers, Sambhu Nath Barick, Sarojendra Nath Barick and Sachindra Nath Barick, jointly purchased a house property situated at No. 84, ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ichhabai Panchal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Cal)292,[1982]137ITR232(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The assessment years involved are 1964-65 to 1969-70. In all these years, the net wealth returned by the assessee was less than 75 per cent. of the net wealth assessed by the WTO. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings and referred the same to the IAC of Wealth-tax as the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000 in each of these years under consideration. In response to the show-cause notice, it was pleaded that there was no concealment of any assets on the part of tbe assessee and that the provisions of Section 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act, 1957, were not applicable. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) and on some other cases in support of the assessee's contention. It was urged that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty could be imposed. The IAC observed that the assessee had valued the immovable property at their cost price and not on the market price on the valuatio...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Ramendra Nath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: [1982]133ITR38(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The facts of the case are as follows: 2. Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Banerjee, about whose estate the present proceedings relate, died on August 7, 1961. He left a will dated June 1, 1961, in which Sri Ramendra Nath Banerjee was named as one of the executors who along with others is an accountable person in this case. The other accountable persons are beneficiaries under the above will. The deceased during his lifetime had purchased National Savings Certificates and Postal Cash Certificates of Rs. 15,000 each in the names of his two minor sons, namely, Subrata and Debabrata. The Asst. Controller included the entire value of Rs. 30,000 in the estate of the deceased on the ground that the sons were simply his benamidars. In support of his findings he relied on the following paragraph in the will of the deceased dated June 1, 1961 : 'I have also invested Rs. 30,000 in the National Savings Certificates and Postal Cash Certificates in the names of my two sons, Debabrata and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »