Kolkata Court July 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.
B.P. Bajoria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1981
Reported in: [1982]135ITR734(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' 2. Whether, in a particular case, there was sufficient cause for the failure to file a return and as such penalty should be directed or not is primarily a question fact. On this aspect, the Tribunal seems to have considered all the aspects of the question. We can do no better than to set out the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal.. The Tribunal has observed, inter alia, as follows : '6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and are of the view that, on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the presentcase, the order of the AAC is eminently fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference. It is pertinent to note that the assessee had requested for exten...
In Re: Britannia Engineering Company Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas277(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Section 446 for leave to institute suit and legal proceeding against the official liquidator representing the Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. in liquidation, in terms of prayer (a) of the judge's summons by M/s. Tinwald Properties, a registered partnership firm and the landlord of Trivoli Court, in respect of flat No. 107 on the 2nd floor of Block 'A', Trivoli Court at No. 1/C, Bullygunge Circular Road.2. The facts which cannot be disputed are that on or about 31st May, 1969, Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the said flat No. 107 on the second floor of Block A, Trivoli Court, at No. 1/C, Bullygunge Circular Road, at a monthly rent of Rs. 950, service charge Rs. 250 per month and hire charge for fittings at Rs. 150 per month, making an aggregate of Rs. 1,350 per month. The said Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. also advanced a sum of Rs. 30,000 which was to be adjusted against the monthly ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-i Vs. Birla Bros. P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)25CTR(Cal)4,[1982]133ITR373(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, arises out of an appeal for the assessment year 1969-70. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year, the assessee claimed relief under Section 80-O of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of a sum of Rs. 4,66,858 received by it during the relevant previous year from a foreign company known as M/s. Indo-Ethiopian Textile Share Company under a managing agency agreement dated 27th January, 1958. It was not in dispute that the said amount was received by the assessee in consideration of the industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience and skill made available or provided to the foreign company in consideration of technical service rendered or agreed to be rendered to the foreign company by the assessee under the agreement approved by the Central Govt. It was also not in dispute that the assessee-company applied to the Central Govt. as early as 22nd August, 1969, for approval of its agre...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rani Jagadamba Kumari Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1981
Reported in: [1983]143ITR539(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The question in this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Sections 159 and 168 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of the income which related to the period after the death of the late 'Rana' and was under the administrator appointed by the Hon'ble High Court, the assessments could only be made on the administrator and this income could not be included in the assessee's total income ?'2. In view of the facts relevant for these assessment years, which are the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, and in view of the provisions of Section 168 of the I.T. Act, 1961, wherein it is clear that an administrator appointed by this court would admittedly come within the purview of Section 168, in our opinion, the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion and the question must be answered in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tecalemit (Hind) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)28,[1982]137ITR285(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference, two questions have been referred. The questions are as follows ' 1, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that motor car allowance was not a perquisite within the meaning of Section 40(c)(iii) merely because it was paid in cash and, therefore, the ceiling in Section 40(c)(iii) could not apply to it ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee-company was a manufacturer of automobile ancillaries and, therefore, eligible for rebate of 35% on corporate tax '2. In view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. : [1979]119ITR431(Cal) , question No. 1 must be answered, in view of the facts found by the Tribunal, in the negative and in favour of the assessee.3. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, it appears that the AAC gave the following direction:'The company manufactu...
Krishnalal Naskar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1305
ORDERN.C. Mukherji, J.1. These appeals have been filed against an order of conviction dated 31-7-70 passed by Shri S. C, Majumdar, Judge Calcutta Third Additional Special Court, Calcutta.2. Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 1970 has been filed by Krishnalal Naskar, Banobir Burman, Mata Prosad Ghose and Brahmananda Sarkar. They were convicted Under Section 409/109 IPC and sentenced to Rule I. for one year. Criminal Appeal No, 336 of 1970 has been filed by Suresh Ch. Saha who has been found guilty Under Section 409 and 409/120B IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one year under each count. It was ordered that the sentences would run concurrently Cr. Appeal No. 337 of 1970 has been filed by Alik Narayan Jha alias Alik Narayan Ojha against an order of conviction under Section 409/120B and sentenced to R. I. for one year. The other accused persons, namely, Bma Devi, Lalmohon Pal Aurobinda Mukherji, Manotosh Mitra. Oremlal Parasar, Sumanbhai Patel and Reba Chakraborty were found not guilty Under Section...
B.R. Sinha and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ61
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. These three applications for anticipatory bail were taken no together for hearing as the same point of law is involved in all these three cases. At the outset, it may be said that all these applications are in connection with cases which have been started in the Courts outside the jurisdiction of this High Court. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the State by the learned Public Prosecutor that this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these applications as the cases have been started in the Courts outside the jurisdiction of this High Court. With regard to the merits, the learned Public Prosecutor states that besides the copies of the applications which have been served on him he has no other materials before him and as such he is very much handicapped inv making his submissions with regard to the merits of the cases. Mr. Dutta who appears in the case of Binod Ranjan Sinha and in the case of Gurdev Singh and others submits, that Section 438...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›