Kolkata Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-ii Vs. Kishore Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Cal)218,[1982]138ITR527(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 right in holding that in computing the profit or loss arising from the sale of 160 bonus shares of M/s. Kamarhati Co. Ltd., a sum of Rs. 85,233 should be deducted as the cost of the said shares from the sale proceeds ?'2. The question arises in respect of the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee is a dealer in shares and was holding 200 ordinary shares of M/s. Kamarhati Co. Ltd. as stock-in-trade. These shares were acquired by it at Rs. 1,92,000, that is to say, at the rate of Rs. 960 per share. By virtue of its shareholding, the assessee got 160 bonus shares in the said company allotted to it on 31st December, 1948. The assessee sold all its original shares by the end of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1952-53. The assessee so...
Mrs. Chintamoni Debi Vs. Upendranath Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal263,85CWN894
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J.1. The petitioner instituted a partition suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jalpaiguri, for partition regarding all the properties left by her deceased husband, Mahendra Nafh Das. This suit was decreed in a preliminary form. It was held that she would get a widow's share in all the properties left by her husband barring the agricultural lands. An appeal Was taken to the High Court and that decision affirmed. Then a compensation roll was prepared according to the provisions of West Bengal Act (1 of 1954) regarding the agricultural property as well and compensation money assessed. Two sons of Mahendra Nath, who are opposite parties in this revisional application, made an application for a succession certificate to gel such money. The prayer was allowed. Later they applied for an extended succession certificate. Then the present petition was put in by the widow for revocation of the succession certificate. Her plea was that fraud had been practised by her st...
Konsumex Vs. Anand and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal298
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The dispute in this case arises out of shipment of several consignments of men's under-garments by Anand & Co., the defendant No, 1, to Konsu-mex, the plaintiff, a company. 2. The plaintiff's case inter alia is that 87,000 pieces of such garments were shipped between August and September 1975 by S. S. State of Meghalaya and S. S. Vishva Mangal from Calcutta to the port of Rijeka under two Bills of Lading issued by the Shipping Corporation of India Limited, the defendant No. 3. 3. The plaintiff's case is that it opened an irrevocable Letter of Credit in favour of the defendant No. 1 for the value of the said shipments and between July and October 1975 the defendant No. 1 negotiated the said Letter of Credit and obtained sum of Rs. 17,05,500. 4. The plaintiff alleges that on arrival at destination the said garments were found to be contaminated and infected with fungus and insects, and that the same were not fit for the purpose for which the same were purchase...
Smt. Shefali Sarkar Vs. Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs Burdwan and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ79Cal
G.N. Ray, J.1. In this Rule, the order of termination of service of the petitioner Sm. Shefali Barker, a Time Scale Clerk in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, Government of India, after one month from the date of service of the notice of termination is under challenge The petitioner was appointed as a temporary time scale clerk in the Burdwan Telegraphs Engineering Division under the Posts and Telegraphs Department. The petitioner contends that the petitioner was initially posted as a Time Scale Clerk in the office of the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs Calcutta West Division, but subsequently she was transferred to the office of the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Burdwan in the same post and on same scale of pay on account of bifurcation of the Calcutta West Division. The petitioner contends that as she was a young unmarried girl and as she had to look after her parents, it was difficult for the petitioner to go to Burdwan on transfer and the petitioner made representation to the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Pilkington Glass Works
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1981
Reported in: [1983]139ITR581(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 the payment of Rs. 2,50,000 made by the assessee-company to M/s. Navin Glass Products did not represent a capital expenditure and that it was an allowable deduction in computing the profits and gains of the business of the assessee-company ?'2. This reference arises out of the assessment order for the assessment year 1970-71, The question relates to the allowance of deduction of Rs. 2,50,000 paid by the assessee to M/s. Navin Glass Products and the question in this reference, as often is referred to is whether the expenditure in question is capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. There is no dispute that the expenditure in question was incurred for the business of the assessee. The amount was paid as a result of a tripartite agreement and t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bird and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Cal)224,[1982]133ITR40(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference for the assessment year 1965-66, 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 proposed dividend of Rs. 11,55,908 was a surplus within the meaning of Clause (ii) of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and should, therefore, be deducted from the cost of investment in shares and only the balance should be deducted from the capital computation under Clause (ii) of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the said Act ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1965-66. The assessee is a private limited company. In computing the chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the assessee claimed that the proposed dividend of Rs. 11,55,908 should not be deducted from the capital base as it constituted a surplus fund within the meaning of Rule 2 of Schedule II to the aforesaid Act. But the ...
Sm. Mayarani Dutta Vs. Bhupal Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal264,85CWN659
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. She filed the present suit and asked for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant-opposite party from making any construction on the disputed land or constructing any soak pit and changing the nature of the disputed land. The prayer was refused. Against that order, Misc. Appeal No. 151 of 1976 was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Burdwan. In that Court also an application was filed to issue an order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from constructing any soak pit or making any construction or from changing the nature of the disputed land. No ad interim order was granted. Against that order the present revisional application has been filed.2. A preliminary objection has been raised on the basis of the well-known decision of Sarttju Prosad v. Ganga Prosad in : AIR1951Cal446 . The Benph of our Court has stated that where a prayer for temporary injunction is made, each order thereon is a final one and...
Balaram Pramanik and ors. Vs. Arbinda Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal266
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiffs instituted thesuit for recovery of damages. The allegation is that the property of the Schedule Ka to the plaint was purchased by them from one Aswini Das. The property of the Schedule Kha belonged to the plaintiffs and to his brother, Apurba. Long ago an amicable partition was effected amongst them and thereby Apurba possessed Plots Nos. 391 and 407, whereas the plaintiffs possessed Plots Nos. 392 and 408. Apurba died in 1345 B. S. leaving his widow Bhadreswari. She sold Plots Nos. 391 and 407 to the plaintiffs by a registered kobala dated 21st December, 1941, the purchase being made by the plaintiffs in the benami of defendant No. 6 and in the name of Prafulla's son. The latter died unmarried. The plaintiffs were in possession of all those 4 plots. On the 8th Agrahayan, 1371 B. S., the defendants forcibly harvested paddy grown on those lands by the plaintiffs. The suit is few recovery of Rs. 200/- as damages.2. The defendants filed a written stat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Cal)226,[1983]140ITR286(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. The instant reference relates to the assessment year 1965-66, for which the previous year ended on 30th June, 1964. Herein the question posed before us is as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,56,529 could not be included in the total incomeof the assessee under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. During the accounting year, the assessee transferred Rs. 3,45,000 out of the suspense account running from 1946-47 to 1948-49 to its capital reserve account. The ITO found that out of the above sum, an amount of Rs. 2,56,529 represented liabilities for expenses which had been allowed in the earlier years. By applying Section 41 of the Act, he included this amount in the total income of the assessee. 3. When the assessee went up in appeal before the AAC, he confirmed the view taken by the ITO. 4. The assessee came in further appeal to the Tribunal and con...
Deoralia Brothers and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC113(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, Messrs. Deoralia Brothers, is a registered partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the said firm), within the meaning of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its registered office at 26, Beniatolla Street, Calcutta. Petitioner No. 2,' Shri Kisan Agarwal, is one of the partners of the said firm. .2. It has been claimed that on or about 3rd August, 1973, on the basis of a purported raid in the shop of the petitioners, a seizure list under Section 14(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was made by the Inspectors of Commercial Taxes-cum-Investigation, Bureau of Investigation, being respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in this rule, and various documents and records of the said firm were seized. Such seizure has been stated to be made on mere suspicion. Then by the memo dated 7th August, 1973, the petitioners were asked to appear before the Commercial Taxes-cum-Investigation Officer, with all books of accoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »