Kolkata Court December 1982 Judgments
Liberty Cinema Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)4ITD618(Kol.)
1. The asscssee is a registered firm. The last partnership deed was constituted on 4-2-1953. The partners, according to the above deed, were Shri Nandlal Jalan, Vithalbhai Bhimji Mansata and Shiva Prosad Jaiswal. Shri Nandlal Jalan died on 24-4-1976. In Clause 4 of 1953 deed it was provided that the death of any partner shall not dissolve the partnership. The legal representative of the deceased partner shall be admitted into the partnership in place of the deceased partner unless the legal representative elects to sell his shares to the surviving partners at a valuation to be agreed upon with him. The continuing partners executed a fresh deed of partnership on 24-9-1976 in which it was indicated that none of the heirs and legal representatives of Shri Nandlal Jalan since deceased, has approached the parties to be admitted in the partnership in the place and stead of the deceased. However, at the time of making the profit and loss account and balance sheet a due provision was made for...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal307,87CWN450
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellants, namely, the Union of India, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Steel, Mines and Coal (Department of Mines) and the Controller of Aluminium have challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge made absolute the Rule Nisi issued on the application of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as HINDALCO, and one of its share-holders, under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the writ application, the respondent HINDALCO challenged the propriety and legality of five orders of the Central Government, all dated Oct. 4. 1979 under the Aluminium Control Order, 1970 passed under Section 3 ef the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The legality and constitutional validity of the provisions of Clauses 4A and 4B of the Aluminium Control Order were also challenged in the writ application.2. At all material times HINDALCO carried and still carries on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsidas Mundhra Vs. the Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal403
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order made and judgment delivered on December 10, 1979, by Mr. Justice Salil K. Roy Chowdhury. By the said order the learned Judge directed that Sri Tulsidas Mundhra be arrested to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. This order came to be passed because there was misfeasance. The order was to the following effect ; 'This Court doth hereby declare that the above named respondent Haridas Mundra and Gopidas Mundra and Tulsidas Mundra as the Directors of the said Company and in particular the said Haridas Mundra also as the proprietor of the said company had misappropriated, retained or become liable or accountable for the money or property of the said company or are guilty of misfeasance and breach of trust in relation to the said company in (i) that the respondent Directors of the said company in particular the said Haridas Mundhra made secret profits and/or obtained personal advantage by causing two lacs and ninety thousan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amalendu Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Cal)174,[1984]145ITR439(Cal)
Sabyasacht Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the assessee filed a revised return declaring the unexplained cash credit of Rs. 35,000 as his income, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not attracted in this case and in that view cancelling the order of penalty made under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The facts of this case are as follows : The assessee had filed originally a return on June 28, 1963, declaring an income of Rs. 45,251. The ITO noticed cash credits aggregating to Rs. 35,000 which were claimed to be a loan taken from one Sri Sudhangshu Mandal. The assessee was required to prove the source of the credits and summons under Section 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was also issued in this ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR207(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. In this case, we are concerned with the assessment year 1964-65, for which the relevant accounting year is the calendar year 1963.2. The facts of this case are as follows :For this assessment year the assessee-company amongst other claims contended before the ITO that the dividend from foreign companies should be assessed not on the gross amount of the dividends (hereinafter referred to as ' the gross dividend ') but on the gross amount of the dividends less tax deducted therefrom in the foreign countries (hereinafter referred to as ' the net dividends'). Another claim of the assessee was that the amount due from Chingrihata Bone Mills (P.) Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,53,484 and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 49,132, which was written off, should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income. The ITO, however, did not accept either of these two claims.3. The asseessee-company was aggrieved with the assessment order and, therefore, went up in appeal b...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Satish Chandra Banik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ491
ORDERB.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order dated 5-3-1982 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganas in Misc. Case No. 15 of 1980 directing confiscation of a certain quantity of sugar in exercise of his power under the Essential Commodities Act.2. The petitioner is a partner of a firm dealing in grocery cum stationery articles for which the firm has obtained a licence from the appropriate authority, in course of a search and raid held on 6-11-1979 an Inspector of Police of the Enforcement Branch seized 58 bags of sugar and found the actual stock not to agree with the entries in the Stock Register. Thereupon a case being Belgharia P.S. Case No. 12 dated 6-11-1979 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act was started against the petitioner and his other partners for violation of para 3 (2) of the Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1979 and pa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1982
Reported in: [1985]156ITR201(Cal)
Ghose, C.J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question of law was referred :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,397 being interest paid for late payment of royalty to the Government of Bihar was not an admissible deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1964-65 '2. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1980]123ITR429(SC) , the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be, however, no order as to costs.R.N. Pyne, J. 3. I agree....
Tag this Judgment!The Great India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nowrangrai Ramniwas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal237
S.C. Ghose, C.J. 1. This appeal is derected against a judgment and decree passed by Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. on January 29, 1968. By the said judgment and decree, the learned trial Judge directed payment of the sum of Rs. 16,500/- in favour of the respondents. The claim of the respondent No. 1 was for non-delivery of goods in the following circumstances:The respondent No. 2 was the insurer of the said goods and paid the respondent No. 1 the value of the goods insured against. The appellant, inter alia, carries on business under the name and style of the Great India Boating Company inter alia as carrier of goods and was at all material times and still is a common carrier of goods for hire by inland navigation. On or about October 3, 1961, the appellant as such common carrier received and accepted at Gauhati 125 bales of raw jute each bale weighing 150 kilograms the property of the respondent No, 1 on board the appellant's barge bearing No. A/5214 to be safely lowed by Steamer and secure...
Tag this Judgment!The Great India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Angus Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal408
S.C. Ghosh, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed against a judgment and decree passed by Mr. Justice A. N. Ray on July 19, 20 and 21, 1966. By and under the said decree, the learned Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff respondents for the sum of Rupees 50,437.80 P. In view of the fact that the Great American Insurance Company had paid the amount already to the respondent No. 1, decree was made payable to the Great American Insurance Company. The respondent No. 1 carries on business under the name and style of 'Duffs Mills Agency'. The appellant carries on business under the name and style of Great India Trading Company. The appellant was and is a common carrier of goods by inland navigation. On or about Oct. 5, 1961, the appellant as such common carrier received and accepted at Gauhati in the State of Assam 377 bales of raw jute each bale weighing 150 kilograms the property of respondent No. 1 on board. The appellant's barge bearing No. A/ 5214? was to be towed by a steamer to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hind Construction and Engineering Co. L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: [1984]147ITR513(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessee is a company and is engaged in heavy civil engineering works. The financial years of the relevant assessment years ended on 31st March, 1964 and 1965. The assessee's business was to undertake concreting jobs of huge magnitude of many projects scattered over a number of places in the country. For this purpose the assessee owns concrete mixers and other plant/machinery. In order to use these, mixers and plant/machinery, at times the assessee had to fix them on the ground till the work undertaken was completed. As soon as the work was completed at a particular site, the assessee was to remove these to other sites and so on. The assessee had taken a contract for the construction of a dam and a power house at Barabani in Assam, which involved a heavy amount of concreting work. Under the agreement entered into with the concerned authority the assessee was allowed to use the land at the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »