Kolkata Court February 1984 Judgments
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Gokulchand Bangur
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD738(Kol.)
1. These four appeals though they relate to two assessees, involve a common question and are, therefore, disposed of by this single order.2. The dispute in these appeals is as to whether the amounts of refunds which were actually granted to the assessees long after the valuation dates could be included in their net wealth. In case of the first assessee, Shri Gokulchand Bangur, the WTO noticed that he had been granted the following refunds:Assessment year Date of completion of Amount of refund assessment determined1964-65 27-2-1968 2,5011965-66 31-7-1968 1,60,8991966-67 30-8-1968 38,9631967-68 2-6-1969 7,648 Similarly, the second assessee, Shri Gobindlal Bangur, was found to have been granted the refunds as given below: The WTO was of the opinion that when the assessees filed the returns, they had themselves claimed refunds of the total amount paid by them as advance tax on income. He, therefore, concluded that since the assessees knew that the income-tax refunds were due to them at th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Swarnalata Tat Vs. Chandi Charan Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Cal130,88CWN551
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. The question of law involved in this appeal is whether the document executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the first defendant is, in its true effect, mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal preferred by the plaintiff are set out hereinafter.2. The plaintiff, Sm. Swarnalata Tat, instituted the suit for declaration that the transaction between the plaintiff's father and the Defendant No. 1 made on 9th December, 1968 was a loan transaction and that the deed in question was an ostensible sale deed as a security for repayment of the loan taken by the plaintiff's father from the Defendant No. 1 and for a declaration that the said loss (loan) was repaid. The plaintiff also claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from claiming any right of ownership in the property in suit in terms of the deed of sale.3. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that she is the sole he...
Tag this Judgment!Narinder Singh Atwal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD501(Kol.)
1. This is the appeal by the assessee by which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is challenged. The first ground of appeal is that the entire assessment is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable on the facts of the case. It is urged by the assessee that the Commissioner (Appeals) has misconstrued the provision of Explanation I, Clause (iv), of Sub-section (3) of Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), Briefly speaking, the case of the assessee is that the ITO has completed the assessment in the present case after the limitation period was over. It may be stated that for the assessment year 1977-78, the ITO completed the assessment on 24-9-1980 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act, Amongst other things he noted that a draft assessment order was made and forwarded to the assessee under Section 144B(1) vide his letter dated 24-1-1980 which was received by the assessee on 28-1-1980. The assessee sent his objection to the variation of the total income as ...
Tag this Judgment!Krity Basu Vs. Peary Mohan Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal162
Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant tenant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the Court below under Section 13(1)(i) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. At the final hearing of the appeal the finding of the trial Court that the defendant was at the date of the hearing of the suit was a defaulter and that he had failed to comply with the orders passed under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act have not been disputed. We understand that the orders striking out the defendant tenant's defence has been already affirmed upto this Court 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff landlord has failed to prove that the notice of suit under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act had been duly served upon the defendant appellant. Accordingly the instant suit for eviction was not maintainable in law.Having given our anxious consideration to the above submission we hold that the C...
Tag this Judgment!Keratulla Sk. Vs. Fazlur Rahaman Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Cal369,88CWN612
ORDERS.N. Sanyal, J.1. In this revisional application the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned District Judge, Malda made on June 13, 1981 dismissing the petitioner's appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 1980 and thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Malda in Miscellaneous Case No. 133 of 1976 allowing an application made by the opposite parties under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and2 filed an application under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act in the Court of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Malda. It was alleged that the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 along with opposite party No. 3 were co-sharers of a raiyati holding which previously belonged to Enayat Ali Sk. After the death of Enayat Ali Sk. in 1370 B. S. his heirs obtained the property and they were in possession. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 (who are petitioners in the said Miscellaneous case) purchased the property from Hafizul Sk. son of Enayat Ali by ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Mondal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal53
Sukumar Chakravarty, J.1. This is the second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Murshidabad on 8-4-72 in Title Appeal No. 368 of 1968, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Munsif, Lalbagh in Title Suit No. 277 of 1967 and dismissing the suit.2. Plaintiffs brought the suit against the Midnapore Jamindary Co. Ltd. and the State of West Bengal for declaration of the title to the suit land and for permanent injunction. The land described in schedule 'Ka' to the plaint including the land in 'Kha' and 'Ga' schedules was the khas land of the Midnapore Jamindary Co. Ltd. (defendant No. 7). The 'Ga' schedule land measuring 5.01 acres was the disputed land. Mahendra Mondal, predecessor of the plaintiff took settlement of the 'Ka' schedule land at an annual jama of Rs. 16/10/6 p. on the basis of a Dolfordi and possessed the same till his death. Since his death the plaintiffs are in possession of the said land. At the time of R. S...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Kumaria Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Prakash Arya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Cal211
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. On the 10th Aug., 1983, Ram Niwas Kumarja Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff, instituted this suit against Prem Prakash Arya, the defendant, claiming, inter alia, a decree for Rs. 1,02,077.50 p. with further interest.2. The plaintiff alleges that it had lent and advanced to the defendant Rs. 50,000/-on the 7th Nov., 1980 and Rs. 45,000/- on the 27th June 1981. The amounts were repayable on demand with interest payable every month at the rate of 1 % per month, which was enhanced to 14% per month in Nov., 1982.3. The plaintiff alleges further that it demanded repayment of the said loans with interest which the defendant failed and neglected to pay.4. This application has been made in this suit by the plaintiff on a notice dated the 11th Aug., 1983 for the following orders:--(a) A direction on the defendant to furnish security for Rs. 1,02,077.50 p. (b) In default, the outstanding, dues payable to the defendant by Jessep & Co. P. Ltd.; Chandras Chemicals Enterprises Ltd.; Reha...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhansu Kumar Bose and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: [1984]150ITR626(Cal)
1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessments of Bose Brothers as a partnership firm for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59. The material facts available from records are as follows :On May 24, 1948, by a deed of partnership, executed by Sudhansu Kumar Bose, Biraj Bose and Tarachand Bose, three sons of one Shamendra Kumar Bose, a partnership was sought to be constituted under the name and style of Bose Brothers. It was recorded in the deed, inter alia, that Shamendra who had been carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Bose & Co., at No. 76, Benaras Road, Hovvrah, as a sole proprietor had retired from the said business in 1349 B.S. and that the same was given in gift to his said three sons, in equal shares, for being carried on in co-partnership, each partner having 1/3rd share. Tarachand was a signatory to the said deed.2. The partnership claimed and was granted registration under the I.T. Act for the relevant assessment years and was assessed as...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. (P) Ltd and ors. Vs. the Municipal Commissioners of Kamarhati Mun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ26
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Messrs. K.L. (P) Limited, the petitioner No. 1, has been manufacturing sodium dichromate and sodium sulpha teat its factory at 64/2, Old Nimta Road, P.S. Belgharia, Calcutta-56 since 1976 under licence from the Kamarhati Municipality.2. On Sept. 10, 1979 a notice was issued by the Vice-Chairman of the Kamarhati Municipality under Section 452 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 alleging, inter alia, that injurious gases and vapour are being generated at the factory, in the process of manufacture, causing danger to public health and that offensive trade refuse was allowed to run causing pollution to a public tank. The notice further directed the petitioner No. 1 to close the said factory within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof.3. The petitioner No. 1 and one of its directors challenged the said notice by a writ petition where a rule nisi was issued on Jan. 19, 1980 and an ad interim order restraining the Municipal Authorities fromgiving further effect to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mustafa Sheikh Vs. Lalchand Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1183
S.P. Das Ghosh, J.1. This revisional application at the instance of the de facto complainant, Mustafa Sheikh, is directed against an order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri S. P. Sen Gupta learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Murshidabad, on 25-9-1981 under Section 324/34 IPC in Sessions Serial Case No. 142 of 1980 in which four persons viz., Lalchand Sheikh, Sukur Sheikh, Fazlu Sheikh and Sademan Sheikh, stood charged under Section 304/34 I.P.C2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 21st Chaitra, 1385 B. S., the aforesaid four accused persons (opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 in this revisional application) assaulted one Yakub Ali, the brother of the de facto complainant, Mustafa Sheikh, while he was sleeping in his khalian (a khamar where crops are kept), by lathis and chhanis (big hensuas) and that subsequently, Yakub Ali succumbed to his injuries on 19-4-1979 after the occurrence on 4-4-1979. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found, on a consideration of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »