Kolkata Court August 1982 Judgments
Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR73(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of P.K. Banerjee J. dated January 31, 1972, reported as Hunger-ford Investment Trust Ltd. v. ITO : [1976]102ITR314(Cal) , dismissing the appellant's application made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the notices under Section 34 and Section 23(2) of the Indian I.T. Act 1922, for the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52. The relevant facts of this case may briefly be stated :The appellant, M/s. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., having its registered office at Singapore, Malaya, holds all the shares of M/s. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd., a company incorporated in India. An order under Section 23A, before its amendment in 1955, was passed by the ITO in the case of M/s. Turner Morrison and Co, Ltd., and proceedings were taken under Section 34 by the ITO in order to tax the dividend deemed to have been declared u/s, 23A in favour of M/s. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., for the assessment years 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudas Chatterjee and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ200Cal
G.N. Roy, J.1. This writ petition is heard as a contested application with notice to the respondents and Mr. N.C. Chakraborly with Mr. Madhusudan Banerjee have appeared for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Amalesh Mitra has appeared for the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an employee of the State Bank of India and also the Chief Secretary of the State Bank of India Staff Association, viz the petitioner No. 2. Against issue of a circular dated 25th March, 1982 by the General Manager (Operations) giving directions relating to office attendance of the employees of the State Bank of India, the instant writ petition has been moved alter demanding justice by the petitioners requesting the State Bank of India to withdraw the said circular. The impugned circular is Annexure 'B to the writ petition and it appears that by the said Circular No. 34 of 1982, the General Manager (Operations) has held that growing indiscipline amongst all categories of staff in many areas of activities of...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ratna Bala Debi Vs. Dilip Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal4
N.G. Chaudhuri, J. 1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Civil P. C. filed by the decree holder-petitioners is directed against order No. 80 dated 16-6-1981 passed by the subordinate Judge, Asansol in Title Execution Case No. 9 of 1976 of that Court. By the aforesaid order the learned subordinate Judge has allowed the opposite party's petition under Order 21, Rule 16, C. P. C. holding that he was entitledto be added as a co-decree holder. The subordinate Judge has further found that the decree holder prima facie appear to have lost right, title and interest in respect of eight annas share in the suit property which they had sold to one Gouri Dutt Sharma from whom the opposite party purchased the said share.2. For a proper appreciation of the contentions raised before us it is necessary to state the antecedent facts in some details. Hirannabhusan Mukherjee, the predecessor in interest of the decree holders leased out the property...
Tag this Judgment!West Bengal Power Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD162(Kol.)
1. The main dispute in this appeal revolves round the question as to whether the assessee was carrying on business during the relevant accounting year so as to claim the benefits of bad debts, depreciation and set off of unabsorbed depreciation.2. Originally the assessee was carrying on the business of generating and supplying electricity, but the same was acquired by the State Government. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee received interest on the recoverable suspense, i.e., ad-interim purchase consideration from West Bengal State Electricity Board which had taken over all the units from the assessee-company. In the original return the assessee treated this interest as 'income from other sources' but in the revised return it claimed the same as income from 'business'.The ITO was of the opinion that the power supply business that was originally being conducted by the assessee had been entirely taken over by the State Electricity Board and the consideration therefor was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Maharani Rajluxmi Kr. Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR948(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. In this case, the assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year is 1966-67. The return of net wealth for the said assessment year was due for submission on or before 30th June, 19,66, but was actually filed on 28th September, 1967. Because the return was filed late, penalty proceeding under Section 18(1)(a) of the W. T. Act was initiated. The WTO ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,874 under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act on 27th . November, 1967.2. The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC against the penalty order and the AAC, following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. : [1971]80ITR14(Cal) , gave a direction to the WTO to verify whether the wealth-tax for the assessment year under consideration was paid and, if so, whether there was any justification for imposition of penalty.3. The WTO preferred an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the AAC. The Tribunal upheld the order of the AAC relying on the...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Prosad Verma and ors. Vs. Stock and Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)CHN25,[1985]58CompCas338(Cal)
Padma Khastgir, J.1. This application has been taken out by Hanuman Prosad Verma, Shyam Chandra Ghosh and Upendra Charan Pal against the company, M/s. Stock & Finance Ltd. and others, for various reliefs in the nature of directions on the special officer to prepare a correct list of members and upon approval of the said list, the special officer be authorised to issue share certificates to members who have not received the same, a direction upon the special officer to assess in respect of each of the directors of the amount of remuneration drawn by them in violation of Section 314 of the Companies Act and upon such determination, necessary orders be passed directing each of the directors to refund to the company the amounts received by them in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, a direction upon the special officer to calculate the amounts taken by H.C. Mitra, P.C. Mitra, A. Mitra and Tarun K. Mukherjee either individually or jointly by different methods without pro...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Apeejay Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal271
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. dated May 9. 1977: (Reported in AIR 1977 NOC 263 (Cal) in an application for setting aside the award of the Arbitrator Sri S. K. Sen dated June 12, 1969.2. The matter arose out of a contract between the Union of India represented by the Iron & Steel Controller and the respondent (hereinafter called Apeejay) regarding supply of enamelled sheets, black plates etc. from the United States of America which was to be financed out of the Development Loan Fund placed at the disposal of the Government of India by the U. S. Government. One of the terms of the said contract was for security deposit to the extent of 5% of the contract value of the goods by Apeejay. Such security amount at the calculated rate amounted to a sum of Rs. 1,99,156. In terms of thesaid contract a guarantee bond was executed by Apeejay in favour of the Union of India in lieu of the said security amount through Punjab Natio...
Tag this Judgment!G.A. Renderian Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Cal)318,[1984]145ITR387(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal has referred the following question to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is an 'industrial company' in terms of Clause 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978?'2. The assessment year involved is 1978-79, for which the previous year ended 30th April, 1978. The assessee in this year, as in the past, carried on the business of purchasing tea of different qualities in auction, blending the same by mixing one type of tea with another and then selling the tea so blended in packets. It appears that the assessee in the course of its assessment had claimed that by carrying on the above business it was an 'industrial company' in terms of Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978, and so it was entitled to the concessional rate of tax allowed to such a company. In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant secti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tarachand Meghraj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR630(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the following question has been referred to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid gift on March 28, 1957, to Bai Kamala and Bai Indu so as to justify allowance of interest claimed with respect to the amounts credited to their account on the said date for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59?' 2. In order to appreciate the question, we must mention that this reference arises out of the income-tax assessments for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. In these assessments the assessee claimed deduction for interest paid to Bai Kamala and Bai Indu with respect to the credits in their names on March 28, 1957, of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000 respectively. The relevant facts relating to these sums have been set out in the statement of the case and under the G.T. Act for the assessment year 1958 which had been simultaneously prepared and s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Purshattamdas Bhiwaniwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal505
ORDERPradyot Kumar Banerjee, J. 1. This application is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, on an application under Sections 17 (2) and 17 (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 purchased the suit premises on 27th March, 1974. On 27th March, 1974 the letter of attornment was sent to the defendant opposite party informing the names of the persons who purchased the premises in suit, On 10th April, 1974, it is alleged that the defendant opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the said letter and sought to know who are the actual purchasers from the erstwhile landlord, I do not like to consider any other facts for the purpose of this rule. The notice of ejectment was served on behalf of the 5 persons on 22nd March, 1976. Mr. S, P. Roy, Advocate, on behalf of the defendant acknowledged the receipt of the notice of ejectment on 30th April, 1976 and the suit was instituted on 27...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »