Kolkata Court January 1982 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.
Manindra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Asst. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR476(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, the following question has been referred to this court for an answer:' Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon a proper construction of the trust deed dated 24th October, 1944, and the documents dated 25th June, 1954, 30th July, 1954, 10th September, 1956, and 22nd April, 1960, the Tribunal was right in holding that the estate of the deceased has rightly been assessed to estate duty under Section 12 read with Section 27 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 '2. During the estate duty assessment proceedings the Asst. Controller found that the deceased, Makhanlal Mukherjee, died intestate on 30th December, 1966, at the age of 77 years. The deceased was survived by six sons and one married daughter and one of them had been authorised to represent the other heirs in the estate duty proceedings. In the estate duty assessment various properties of the deceased were involved. We are concerned ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Official Trustee of West Bengal for Tru ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Cal)50,[1982]136ITR162(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The assessee in this case is the official trustee of West Bengal for Trust Murshidabad Estate. The case relates to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1971-72, the corresponding valuation dates being 31st March immediately preceding each assessment year. The WTO in the wealth-tax assessment proceeding allowed exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the W.T. Act, 1957, up to Rs. 1 lakh in respect of a part of the building at 85, Park Street, Calcutta. The WTO held that the building was used partly for the residential purpose of the beneficiaries.2. The AAC, however, held that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption as the building in question vested in the trustee to be held by him in trust. According to him, one of the beneficiaries was allowed to use and occupy the premises No. 85, Park Street, Calcutta, but the property did not belong to such beneficiary and the conditions laid down in Section 5(1)(iv) of the W.T. Act had not been satisfied in this case.3. The ...
Tarak Nath Paul Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Cal)61,[1983]142ITR468(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, two questions have been referred to this court which are as follows :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing a partial relief instead of quashing the penalty order and in holding that the mens rea is not required to be established by the Department in imposing penalty for late submission of returns ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty was at all justified without proper consideration of the press note dated 2nd June, 1969, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, Govt. of India, referred to in the Tribunal's order ?' 2. This reference relates to four assessment years, viz., assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, and the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of a trust called ' Puma Chandra Paul Trust' with 1/5th share. 90% of th...
Umasankar Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1982
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ378Cal
M.M. Dutt, J.1. In this appeal the appellant, Umasankar Chatterjee, has challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge discharged the rule nisi issued on the application of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.2. The appellant was appointed the Finance Manager of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), a Government Company under the control of the Central Government and was posted at Kamrup in Assam. At the relevant time, his scale of pay was Rs. 1800 to Rs. 2250. On August 25, 1975, the appellant was transferred to Korba in Madhya Pradesh, but before his transfer he was sent on tour from Kamrup to Calcutta on August 15, 1975 for finalisation of the annual accounts with the Government auditors. He was, however, released from Calcutta on August 25, 1975 on account of his illness, and he joined the Korba Division on Se...
Dukhiram Dey Vs. Mrityunjoy Prosad Daw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1975Cal294a
B.N. Maitra, J.1. Title Suits Nos. 73 of 1966 and 102 of 1967 were heard analogously. In the former suit, the plaintiffs are Mrityunjoy Prasad and Bhairab Nath. Their case is that the disputed plot No. 4162 was duly recorded in the C. S. Khatian in the name of one Sheikh Hamizuddin, who was its owner under the landlords, who were Kandu Chaudhuris. In 1945, he expired leaving one Sheikh Akbar as his son. Akbar used to possess the land till 1950, when on account of communal disturbance in the locality, he left the place. The properly in suit together with the structures standing thereon remained vacant and unoccupied. By a registered kobala executed on the 2nd Feb. 1965, Sheikh Akbar sold the property for Rs. 1000/- to one Tara prasad Sarkar, who took possession thereof. Then by a registered sale deed dated 30th Apr. 1966. Tara Prosad sold that property to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 11,500/-. The plaintiffs obtained possession, in the R. S. Khatian. the land was recorded in Sk. Akba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›