Kolkata Court July 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suchitra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1981
Reported in: [1982]135ITR797(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1959-60, and the relevant accounting year is the financial year ended on March 31, 1959.2. Before the assessment under Section 23(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on December 27, 1960, the assessee filed 4 returns of income on September 7,1960, September 14, 1960, November 26, 1960, and December 21, 1960, revising the income from profession shown in the earlier return. In the last return filed on December 21, 1960, the assessee had shown professional income of Rs. 80,575 as her earning from the films, viz., Hospital, Bombaika-Babu and Saptapadi.3. During the assessment proceedings the assessee agreed with the ITO that there was some mistake in the professional income shown by her. Finally, the assessee agreed that in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under reference she received Rs. 95,500 in respect of her role in the different films.4. The ITO, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Patna Electric Supply Co. L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal74,86CWN43
M.M. Dutt, J.1. The appellant, the Bihar Slate Electricity Board has, in this appeal, challenged the propriety of the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. whereby the learned Judge made the Rule Nisi issued on the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the Patna Electric Supply Company and one of its directors, absolute.2. On Feb. 6, 1924, a licence was granted by the Government of Bihar to Octaviua Steel & Co. Ltd. for the supply of electrical energy. The laid licence was transferred in favour of the respondent No. 1, the Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. On Jan. 5, 1973, the Bihar State Electricity Board served a notice upon the company under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), requiring the company to sell the undertaking to the Bihar State Electricity Board on the expiry of the period of 50 years from the commencement of the licence, that is, at 12 O'clock in the night between the 5t...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Ray and ors. Vs. Saradendu Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal285
Amitabha Dutta, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 1349 of 1970 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Additional Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 21 of 1969, for eviction of the defendants as ex licensees in one room in premises No. 30/42, Attapara Lane, P. S. Baranagar in the district of 24-Parganas.2. The plaintiffs' case was that they are the owners of the suit premises that the defendants were licensees in one room in the suit premises and that the plaintiffs duly revoked the license by a notice dated 17th Dec., 1963 served on the defendants who did not vacate the suit room in compliance thereof.3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement in which they denied the allegations of the plaintiffs and asserted that they were occupying two rooms in the suit premises as co-owners of the said premises which was joint family property of their f...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhesh Chandra Ghose Vs. Smt. Bindu Bashini Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal387
Amitabha Dutta, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the appellate decision of the learned Additional District Judge at Jalpaiguri modifying the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge at Jal-Paiguri in Title Suit No. 13 of 1969 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and raesne profits.2. The plaintiff's case was that one Keramuddin was the owner of the suit Dremises comprised in holding No. 144, in Ward No. 16 of Siliguri Municipalityas described in the schedule to the plaint. He sold the suit premises to Sawarmal Tulsan by a registered deed of sale dated 3-7-1961. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the suit premises from the said Sawarmal Tulsan bv a registered deed of sale dated 22-2-1965 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and became the absolute owner of the same. The pro forma defendant No. 5 was the eldest son of the defendant No. 1 and the defendants Nos, 3 and 4 were the other two sons of the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 was the widow of pre-dece...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Protima Roy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Cal)275,[1982]138ITR536(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is a reference relating to two assessment years, viz., the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee owned 20,200 shares in Jaipur Udyog Ltd., 12,900 shares in Orissa Cement Ltd. and 1,000 shares in Dubhar Mills Ltd. It appears, during the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee received 2,580 bonus shares from Orissa Cement Ltd. totalling 15,480 holding shares in that company. In the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee received 4,040 bonus shares in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. also and the shareholding in this company thus became 24,240. In the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee sold away the entire shareholdings in the Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and Orissa Cement Ltd., and claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs. 75,280 as compared to the reduced cost of the shares at which these were purchased by the assessee from time to time. In the assessment year 1969-70 the assessee also received 250 shares from Jaipur Udyog Ltd. which raised the assessee's holding in tha...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotish Kumar Saha Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1334
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. With the written consent of the Local (Health) Authority, Birbhum, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Banerjee, a Food Inspector of Birbhum filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act' for short) alleging that on September 21, 1978, the petitioner exposed for sale mustard oil in his grocery shop, which on analysis was found to be adulterated. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more. As the appeal preferred against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Birbhum, the petitioner moved this Court in revision, and obtained the present Rule.2. The only point that has been urged in support of the Rule is th...
Tag this Judgment!Golden Steel Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT801(Cal)
1. In view of Circular bearing No. F. 139/3/80-CX. 4 dated May 80 regarding levy of duty on the manufacture of hinges from hot rolled cut strips used in such manufacturing in respect of classification under item 26AA (iii) it is now clear that the Hinges manufactured are not liable to pay the duties in so far as the intermediary process is concerned, in that view of the matter, in my opinion, this rule must be made absolute which I hereby do. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Elvoc (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1981
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas308(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This matter involves a question of considerable public importance relating to the principle and procedure for the sale of the assets of a company in liquidation : Whether the only object of such sale is to fetch the maximum price or whether the court, at its discretion, having regard to the prevailing socio-economic questions, which are involved in a welfare State like India, should apply the law in a pragmatic manner having regard to the realities and interest of the public.2. In this case, admittedly, due to mismanagement and misappropriation by the ex-management, the company was ultimately wound up by an order dated 20th of November, 1978, and the official liquidator took possession of the assets, books, papers and documents of the company, on the application of a partnership firm, M/s. Tea Land, of which one of the ex-directors of the company is a partner, for winding-up on a claim of Rs. 68,000, being Company Petition No. 389 of 1976. After the said wi...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR114(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of both the Revenue as well as of the assessee several questions have been referred to us. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us:'1. Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal or on record and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief Under Section 84/80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the new production units added to the existing production units of the assessee at Alupuram, Belur, Hirakud and Muri for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the agreement between the non-resident company and the Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no receipt of fees by the non-resident company in India for the assessment years 1967-...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jew and ors. Vs. Bhagwandas Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal12
1. The above suit was instituted by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit property as a trespasser and a decree for Rupees 1,09,600/- by way of mesne profit etc. The plaintiff alleged that pursuant to an agreement for lease by and between the parties. the plaintiff agreed to let out the suit property to the defendant for 86 years on terms and conditions contained in the draft approved lease and the defendant deposited Rupees 1,00,000/- with the plaintiff by way of salami to be forfeited on failure of the defendant to execute the lease. The possession of the suit property was delivered to the defendant pursuant to the said agreement. The defendant failed and neglected to execute the lease. Therefore the said deposit was forfeited by the plaintiff in terms of the agreement and the suit was instituted for recovery of possession. In the written statement the defendant alleged that he was in possession of the suit property as a thika tenant prior to the agreement for lea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »