Skip to content

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.

Jun 03 1981

Oil India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-03-1981

Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Cal)276,[1982]135ITR713(Cal)

Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. This reference arises out of an application filed by the assessee, Oil India Ltd., Duliajan, under Section 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. There is an agreement dated December 27, 1963, between the assessee-company and the Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. under which charges in accordance with the basis set out in the schedule annexed to the said agreement are payable half yearly by the assessee-company to the Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. for the services rendered by the latter to the assessee-company. Clause 7 of the said agreement reads as follows :'In consideration of the services to be performed by the Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. pursuant to Clauses 3 and 5 of this agreement, the company shall pay and allow respectively to the Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. or to the associated or subsidiary company, or the companies actually performing the services, as the case may be, costs determined in accordance with the basis set out in the Schedule annexed hereto. Such costs shall be payable half-yearly, in...


Jun 02 1981

Seth Keshrichand Khaitan Education and Welfare Trust Vs. Commissioner ...

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-02-1981

Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Cal)298,[1982]138ITR351(Cal)

Sabyasachi Murharji, J. 1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1971-72. The question with which we are concerned in this reference is, whether the proviso to Section 164(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which was introduced by the Finance Act of 1970, with effect from 1st April, 1971, would be applicable in assessing the present trust.2. The assessee is a trust. The trust was created by a declaration made on the 9th of December, 1964, by the four sons of Keshrichand Khaitan (deceased) settling upon trust of Rs. 5,000 contributed by each of the four settlors with the object of the benefit and use of the heirs, successors and children of the settlors and for their and each of their education, training and vocational pursuits and for their general well being. The objects of the trust were, inter alia, according to the trust deed, as follows :' (a) To meet and defray the costs and expenses of education of the male and female members of the family of the settlors descending in the male l...


Jun 01 1981

Russel Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-01-1981

Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)330,[1982]137ITR358(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 sum of Rs. 49,413 being interest to the Calcutta Corporation was allowable as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee 2. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal in coming to its conclusion that the interest of Rs. 49,413 was on account of defiance of provisions of law and, therefore, not allowable as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee or the said conclusion is perverse 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in holding that interest of Rs. 49,413 payable to the Calcutta Corporation is not allowable as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee is perverse '2. While we are on this aspect, we may point out a fact upon which some reliance was placed on be...


Jun 01 1981

Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-01-1981

Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Cal)55,[1982]135ITR496(Cal)

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference arising out of the assessment orders for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, we are faced with a very short question. The assessee paid remuneration of Rs. 97,682 and Rs. 1,20,000, respectively, in the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 to the managing director. The ITO disallowed Rs. 25,682 and Rs. 48,000, respectively, in the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, being in excess of Rs. 72,000. On appeal, the AAC upheld the ITO's orders.2. There was a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it was contended before the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 40(c)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961, placed a limit on the allowance of remuneration to a director of Rs. 72,000, but it only applied to a case where the ITO came to the conclusion that the payment of the remuneration to the director was excessive or unreasonable having, regard to the legitimate business needs of the assessee. It is common ground that in this case there is no ...


Jun 01 1981

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malwa Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-01-1981

Reported in: 1981(2)CHN114,(1982)26CTR(Cal)347,[1982]134ITR56(Cal)

Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This reference, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Calcutta, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1968-69, for which the relevant previous year ended on 30th June, 1967.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of sugar. As per its profit and loss account for the year under reference, there was a loss of Rs. 73,535. The ITO, after disallowing the depreciation claimed and some other expenses.determined it at a profit of Rs. 3,15,064. Out of this, he deducted profit on sale of fixed assets of Rs. 3,207 resulting in a net profit of Rs. 3,11,857. The depreciation claimed in this year, as per rules, worked out to Rs. 3,18,430. This was set off by the ITO against the profit of Rs. 3,11,857 as worked out above resulting in a net loss of Rs. 6,573 (Rs. 3,18,430 minus Rs. 3,11,857). Ultimately, he carried forward this amount as unearned depreciation to be set off against the income of future years. The asse...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial