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.
Sunil Krishna Kumar Vs. Gadadhar Chakrabarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal333,85CWN918
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. On the 17th Dec., 1942, the plaintiff purchased 8 annas share in the disputed tank in a court sale. Subsequently, on the 6th June, 1953, he acquired 6 annas share in that tank from one Nitya Gopal Mukherjee by a sale deed. The plaintiff's suit is for partition of his 14 annas share in the tank in question. 2. Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement stating that the tank could not be partitioned. 3. The learned Munsif rejected the defendant's contention and decreed the suit Defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal and lost the same and hence this second appeal. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has referred to the case of Narendra v. Jnanendra in (1952) 90 Cal LJ 147 to show that where a dwelling bouse jointly owned by the members of a Hindu family is sought to be partitioned, every member has an inherent right to obtain a slice in his share. If partition is destructive of the intrinsic value of the property, the Court may. in cases coming unde...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Krishwanti Punjabi and anr. (L.Rs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Cal)225,[1983]139ITR703(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 Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of assessment for the assessment year 1964-65, made by the Income-tax Officer, was invalid and illegal?'The assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year was 1964-65. The ITO computed the total income at Rs. 13,086, after making an addition of Rs. 11,000 as income from other sources. This sum was found to have been invested by the assessee in the firm of M/s. Mahabir Prosad Om Prakash in which he was a partner.2. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee went up in appeal before the AAC. Finding that the assessment was completed without giving proper opportunity to the assessee and ignoring the evidence already on record, the AAC set aside the assessment with the direction to the ITO to dispose of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalinga Otto (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Cal)1,[1983]139ITR710(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are faced with the familiar but not too easy question whether the particular expenditure should be allowed as a revenue expenditure or not. This reference arises out of the assessment far the assessmentyears 1964-65 to 1966-67 and the relevant accounting years were calendar years 1963 to 1965, respectively. The assessee is a company which carried on, at the relevant time, the business of execution of contracts. There was an agreement entered into between Hindustan Steel Limited, hereinafter called HSL and Dr. C. Otto & Co., Gmbh (German company), the assessee-company, incidentally the name of which has been subseuently changed and we have, by an order passed today, altered that name, and hereinafter the said company is called the assessee-company. The contract was for (1) expansion of coke oven plant, and (2) construction of houses/bungalows including furniture, sanitary and electrical installat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›