Kolkata Court December 1984 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.
Anil Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. Subhas Kumar Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal315,1985(1)CHN129,89CWN372
G.N. Ray, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order No. 54 Dt. May 12, 1983 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1663 of 1981. By the aforesaid order, the application made by the plaintiffs-respondents for temporary injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession in respect of 4 rooms with annexed covered verandahs appertaining to Premises No. 5A, Brindaban Mullick Lane and comprised in Lot 'C' of the plan annexed with the said application for temporary injunction was allowed by the learned Judge. It may be noted that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted the said Title Suit No. 1663 of 1981 for a declaration to the following effect : --'(a) A decree declaring that the decree dt. 23-2-65 passed in O.S. Suit No. 2590 of 1956 being a preliminary compromise scheme decree declaring merely shares of parties on partition in joint properties in schedule and not a decree for possession, the same cann...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Cal)28,[1985]154ITR308(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the relief under Section 80G on the donations paid to Vishwa Mangal Trust ?'3. This reference raises a question of construction of the third Explanation to Section 80G(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 80G allows deduction in respect of donations made to a charitable trust. The third Explanation makes it clear that 'charitable purpose' does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature.4. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74, By an assessment order of December 27, 1976, the ITO had allowed deductionsunder Section 80G on a donation of Rs. 25,000 paid by the assessee company (M/s. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd., Calcutta) to the Vishwa Mangal Tru...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Paper Products Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC42(Cal)
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed in Civil Rule No. 5064(W) of 1969. The said civil rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India made by the respondent in the present appeal, namely, the Paper Products Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The said respondent, Paper Products Ltd., challenged the assessment order dated 3rd June, 1965, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sealdah Charge, in assessment case No. 1 of 1963-64 for the fourth quarter ended on 31st July, 1962, and also the order dated 31st October, 1967, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Dharamtala Circle, in revision case No. 15 of 1967-68.2. The case of the petitioner in the said writ petition is, inter alia, that the petitioner-company which is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act is a dealer registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, having a registration certificate No. SL 2592A. The...
Bijaya and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD1021(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri D. N. Sharma, Judicial Member - The assessee by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing his appeal in limine as time-barred.2. Against the assessment framed for the year 1980-81, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The demand notice was served on the assessee on 14-1-1981 whereas the appeal was filed on 27-2-1981 which was barred by limitation by 14 days. The assessee did not move any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The assessee was, however, required by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his letter dated 13-10-1982 to show cause why the appeal be not rejected as bared by limitation. This letter was received by the assessee on 14-10-1982. On 18-10-1982 the date fixed for hearing, an application was moved on behalf of the assessee for adjournment on the ground that the senior counsels younger brother expired day before yesterday and so he was not in a position to conduct the case. On 19-11-1982 to which date th...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hind Builders and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal204
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. In the present case, thereference was started under an order of Courtmade on 6th May 1983 in Special Suit No. 77of 1983 instituted by the M/s. Hind Buildersunder Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Unionof India duly filed its affidavit-in-opposition inthe said special suit and contested the saidproceeding. Thereafter the parties prosecutedthe arbitration proceeding and an award wasmade in favour of Hind Builders on 26-3-84. Inthis application, the Union of India has prayedfor setting aside the said award on severalgrounds mentioned in the petition. 2. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel, however, pressed five grounds only which are as follows : --1. The order of reference D/- 6-5-83 was made without jurisdiction. Hence the reference was bad and the award is non est. 2. In the course of the arbitration proceeding it was agreed between the parties that the final measurement accepted by the parties would form the basis of the adjudication by the Arbi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-i Vs. Jayashree Charity Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Cal)27,[1986]159ITR280(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1), Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the tax deducted at source on dividend could not be treated as income for the purposes of Section 11, Income-tax Act, 1961, and in that view in directing the Income-tax Officer to exclude the amount of tax deducted at source from the income of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the entire gross dividend income under Section 80K, Income-tax Act, 1961, and the pro rata basis applied by the Income-tax Officer for giving relief under Section 80K, Income-tax Act, 1961, was not correct ?' 2. The assessee, Jayashree Charity Trust, is a charitable trust. The relevant assessment year for the purpose of this case is 1973-74 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1972.3. The asse...
Sushil Kr. Maity Vs. Sandhyarani Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Cal27
Shamsuddin Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 153 of 1977 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 5th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 100 of 1975. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as follows : --Holding No. 12 of Sriramdhang Road was a thika tenancy of one Akhil Chandra Maity. Akhil Chandra Maity died leaving his widow Atulmoyee Maity and two sons Sibgopal and Balaram. The defendant Sushil Kumar Maity is the son of Shibgopal. Plaintiff No. 1 Sandhya Rani is wife of plaintiff No. 2 Balaram Maity. Heirs of Akhil Maity sold the property to one Ganashyam Das for consideration of Rs.2,500/- on 13-11-1950. On the same day Ghanashyam executed a registered agreement for reconveyance in favour of the heirs of Akhil. They purchased the property from said Ghanshyam on 12-9-1954 and on the same day plaintiff No. 1 purchased the right, title and i...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-ii Vs. Model Manufacturing Co. Pvt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Cal)38,[1986]159ITR270(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company. This reference relates to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, The assessee derived income from property, shares, business and dividend. The assessee was the owner of a six storeyed building and derived rental income from the said property. The assessee also received certain amount from the tenants as service charges for the supply of electricity, use of lifts, supply of water, maintenance of staircases and for the watch and ward facilities for the tenants. Before the Income-tax Officer, the claim of the assessee was that the service charges received by the assessee should be treated as business income. However, the Income-tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and treated the service charges as income from property.2. The assessee also claimed depreciation on the fans installed in the property situated at 40, Strand Road. Since the income from the said property was assessable under Section 22 of t...
Amar Chowdhury Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1163
N.G. Chaudhuri, J.1. Convicted of an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year in Special Court Case No. 1 of 1978 by Additional Special Judge, Howrah, by his judgment dt. 22-6-1971 the appellant has come up in appeal. He faced the trial on twofold charges; the first charge was under Section 420 I.P.C. for cheating Sunil Pal by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 200A on 6-5-1971 on the assurance of securing a job for him in the E.S.I. Hospital. The second charge was under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for misconduct manifested in the above noted Act. The prosecution relied on Ext. 18 purported to be a sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which was a primary requisite for the prosecution. The learned Judge, however, held that the same sanction was illegal and invalid and, therefore, acquitted the appellant of the charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In short, the point for consideration in this appeal is...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sanyasi Majhi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: (1985)13ITD61(Kol.)
1. This appeal is directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 765 imposed on the assessee under Section 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). On the date of hearing none attended on behalf of the assessee even though the notice had been served on the assessee nor there was any application for adjournment. Accordingly, the appeal was heard ex parte and is being disposed of on the basis of the material on record and after taking into account the submissions of the learned departmental representative.2. Section 271A, so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal reads, inter alia, as follows: ... if any person, without reasonable cause, fails to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by Section 44AA or the rules made thereunder, in respect of any previous year ...the Income-tax Officer ...may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than 10 per cent but which shall not exceed fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »