Kolkata Court June 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.
Tarachand Ghanshyamdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)353,[1983]139ITR571(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference arises under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, for which the relevant previous years were the calendar years 1949 and 1950, respectively.2. The firm of M/s. Tarachand Ghansnyamdas which has now been assessed through its partners was dissolved on March 3, 1958, It wasoriginally assessed on Rs. 4,34,024 and Rs. 5,13,457 for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, respectively. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the ITO that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income at the time of original assessments. He made enquiries into the matter, secured approval of the then Central Board of Revenue (now Central Board of Direct Taxes) under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and issued notices under the above sections for both the above years which were served on March 22, 1962. The assessee in response to the above notice submitted returns showing income of Rs. 4,34,024 f...
Debi Prosad Trivedi and ors. Vs. Deb Kumar Singhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal254,(1981)2CompLJ34(Cal),85CWN911
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of the plaintiffs and it is directed against order No. 18 dated January 30, 1981 of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore.2. The defendant opposite party is a tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises being Flat No. 5 in the front portion of the second floor of premises No. 14/4, Gariahat Road, Calcutta under a registered Indenture of lease for a period of 21 yean commencing from May 21, 1972 at a rental of Rs. 500/- per month payable according to the English Calendar month. The lease provides for the determination of the same by forfeiture for non-payment of rent. As the defendant committed defaults in payment of rent, the plaintiffs instituted the said suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of determination of lease by forfeiture for nonpayment of rent.3. The defendant made an application under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act praying for re...
State of West Bengal Vs. Subimal Kumar Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal251
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiff has alleged that the disputed land belonged to the minor, Satyendra Nath Patra. The latter's father acted as his guardian and for the benefit of the minor son, sold the disputed property to him on the 7th Dec., 1953, for Rs. 250/-. After making the purchase he has been possessing the property. But in the R.S. Khatian there is a wrong entry that the property belongs to his father and that land has vested in the State. The plaintiff's father did not make any purchase, The suit is for an injunction on declaration of the plaintiff's title and for a further declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights is incorrect. 2. Defendant No. 1 is the State of West Bengal. A written statement was filed denying the plaintiff's allegations. It has been stated that defendant No. 2, plaintiff's father, was a big raiyat and he made a Benami purchase. He did not retain the suit-land. That property has vested in the State. 3. The learned Munsif disbelieved the plaintiff...
Indian Bank Association and anr. Vs. Calcutta Transport Operators Co-o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal393
Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendants Indian Banks' Association and United Commercial Bank against an order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge in the following terms :-- '****It is further ordered that the defendant Banks' Association, its servants, agents and assigns be and they are hereby prohibited and restrained from taking any further steps other than those already taken in respect of the letter of cancellation and/or withdrawal dated the eight day of March one thousand nine hundred and eighty.' And also it was made clear that this order would not stand in any way in the way of the defendants Andhra Bank Limited and United Commercial Bank from considering each consignment note issued by the plaintiff strictly on their merits and from accepting or rejecting the same after such consideration till the disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants herein have preferred this present appeal. 2. The case made out by the plaintiff in its app...
Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)323,[1982]137ITR722(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following three questions have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the return of income furnished by the assessee by virtue of the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, beyond the time allowed under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of the said section, could not be construed as a return furnished under either of the latter sub-sections and in that view holding that the assessee was not entitled to file a revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were within the time-limit prescribed in Section 153(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New Central Jute Mills
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)388,[1982]135ITR736(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1960-61, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta. Three questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal which are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest payment of Rs. 4,81,693 and Rs. 80,230 which were not allowable as revenue expenditure represents an element of actual cost of the assets of Sahu Chemicals and as such depreciation and development rebate are admissible with reference to the said amounts ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in including in the original cost of the plant and machinery any part of the expenses incurred for (i) staff training, (ii) insurance, and (iii) power and fuel in ascertaining the actual cost for the purpose of allowance of development rebate and depreciation allowance ? 3. Whether the Tribunal wa...
Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Cal)263,[1982]136ITR777(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) 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, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax legally invoked the provisions of Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the assessee is a sterling company maintaining accounts in pound sterling, the Tribunal was right in holding that the written down value of the fixed assets should be determined on the basis of the rate of exchange with reference to the date of contract or the date of delivery or the date of payment for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?' 2. This reference arises out of four assessment years, viz., assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. In order to appreciate the questions, it would b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Land Corporation of Bengal P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR63(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukhaeji, J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, a somewhat peculiar question has been referred to this court for an answer. The question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the agreement for sale in respect of premises No. 163, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta, being dated 7th October, 1948, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the forfeiture of the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 being advance from the intending buyer took place on 1st November, 1951, and not 6th October, 1949, and accordingly the gains resulting therefrom, if any, could not be assessed for the assessment year 1952-53 ?'2. We shall presently explain why we characterised the question as somewhat peculiar. Before we do so, it is necessary in this case to refer to the history. This appears to be a question relevant for the assessment year 1951-52. The accounting period for the relevant assessment year was from 1st October, 194...
Mirta Lina Pr. Ltd. Vs. the Finlay Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal41; MANU/WB/0013/1982
ORDERMonjula Bose, J. 1. The short point requiring determination in this application is whether the applicants, Finlay Mills Ltd. and the Gold Mohar Mills Ltd., are entitled to an order of stay of a subsequent suit filed in this Court by the plaintiff Co. under Section 10 of the Civil P. C. To appreciate the contentions that have been raised before the Court, it will be necessary to give a very brief resume of the material facts not in dispute. The plaintiffs are the tenants of the entire ground floor of premises No. 12-B/1.Park Street, Calcutta and the defendant Mills are in occupation of the premises under an agreement dt. Dec. 26, 1975, contended by the plaintiff company to be a leave and licence agreement, whilst the defendants asserting that a greater interest is created in its favour thereunder.2. On or about Nov. 8, 1979 the applicants filed Title Suit No. 2013 of 1979 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the notice dt. Aug. 29. 1979 is...
Arun Kumar Sinha Vs. Sm. Manjula Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal252,85CWN982
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This is a reference made by the learned Addl. District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in Matrimonial Suit No. 12 of 1971, The reference appears to us to be rather misconceived. 2. The parties were married according to Christian rites on April 22, 1964, and a daughter was born to them. On April 17, 1970, the petitioner-husband initiated a proceeding under Section 22 of the said Act which was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 144 of 1970 (later renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 12/71) on transfer against the wife-respondent for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion without any reasonable cause for more than 2 years and cruelty. That suit was decreed ex parte on March 5, 1971, when then learned Additional District Judge passed a decree for judicial separation against the wife under Section 22 of the said Act. Rightly no reference under Section 17 was then made...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »