Kolkata Court January 1985 Judgments
Sibendra Nath Kanjilal Vs. Ganes Chandra Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Cal269,89CWN608
Sukumar Chakravarty, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 1102 of 1974 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 403 of 1972 and in effect dismissing the suit although the learned Additional District Judge has not made any express order to that effect. Such an omission ought not to have occurred in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.2. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid title suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and for recovery of mesne profits. It was the case of the plaintiff in brief that the defendant was the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises at the monthly rental of Rs. 60/- according to English Calendar and that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent since May, 1972. The plaintiff requiredthe suit premises for the purpose of building an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: [1985]155ITR448(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. The assessee, Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited, has spinning and weaving mills at Delhi and ginning and pressing factories in Malout (Punjab), Kesrisingapur (Rajasthan), Fatehabad and Sangaria (Haryana). The assessment years concerned are 1966-67 and 1968-69 for which the previous years ended on March 31, 1966, and March 31, 1968, respectively. 2. The ITO served a demand notice under Section 210 of the I.T. Act, 1961, calling upon the assesses to pay Rs. 24,92,216 for the first year under reference and the assessee paid as per its estimate Rs. 2,50,897. For the second year under reference, the ITO demanded Rs. 5,34,332 under Section 210 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the assessee paid as per its estimate Rs. 3,35,000. The facts revealed for the first year under reference are that the assessee filed an estimate showing an income of Rs. 11.15 lakhs on August 30, 1965. It filed another estimate on November 23, 1965, showing an estimated income of Rs. 7,00,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Highway Construction Co. (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD66(Kol.)
1. By this application under Section 256(1) of the Income Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Commissioner, Shillong, requires the Tribunal to refer the following questions, said to be questions of law, arising out of the order of the Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal No. 296 (Gauhati) of 1979 dated 9-5-1983, to the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, after setting aside the assessment for assessment year 1975-76 by its order dated 5-9-1980 in Income-tax Appeal No. 12 (Gauhati) of 1979 on departmental appeal, was justified in taking up the case again, on assessee's appeal against the same assessment, and in passing orders thereon again in Income-tax Appeal No. 296 (Gauhati) of 1979 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it has got no option but to follow the decision of the High Court if no contrary decision is available 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circums...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Malhotra (Huf) Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD499(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-9-1983 upholding the order of the GTO holding that the assessee made gifts of Rs. 3 lakhs in favour of his three daughters.2. The assessee is a HUF. For the assessment year 1975-76, the GTO issued a notice under Section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act'). In response to that notice the assessee filed a return of gifts disclosing the value of gifts at Rs. 3 lakhs. The assessee, however, claimed that the gifts in question were really in the nature of family arrangement and could not, therefore, be regarded as gifts under Section 2(xii) of the Act. In the alternative it was claimed that the gifts in question were exempt under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Act.However, subsequently on 29-7-1979 the assessee filed a 'revised and amended return' disclosing the total value of the gifts at nil. The GTO rejected the assessee's contention and subjected the entire gifts to taxation.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Loknath Chowdhury Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Cal)340,[1985]155ITR291(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee and his brother, Sushil Kumar Choudhury constructed a building at New Road, Alipore, Calcutta, during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77. The assessee showed the total cost of construction at Rs. 5,29,562 and that in the assessment year 1975-76 at Rs. 3,82,293. This was not accepted by the ITO and the departmental valuer was required to estimate the cost of construction. The departmental valuer determined the total cost of construction of the building at Rs. 7,74,900 and that in the assessment year 1975-76 at Rs. 5,59,700. The difference between the cost of construction relating to the assessment year 1975-76 at Rs. 1,77,407 was treated by the ITO as income from undisclosed sources for the said assessment year and half of the said amount, i.e., Rs. 88,703, being the assessee's half share, was assessed in his hands....
Tag this Judgment!Gora Chand Sen Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1985
Reported in: [1985]154ITR435(Cal)
Satish Chandra C.J.1. The Tribunal has submitted the statement of the case and has referred the following question of law to this court for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri-was right in holding that Section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did apply to the facts of the case of the assessee and that the Income-tax Officer was justified in law to have taken half share of the property income in the hands of the assessee ?'2. The question relates to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1972-73. The property in question situated at Alipore was jointly owned by Shri L. C. Sen and Sri G. C. Sen. It is not in dispute that they owned the property in equal shares, i. e., 50% each. The shares are thus definite and ascertainable under Section 26 of the I.T. Act. The ITO, however, assessed the income from this property in the status of an association of persons. In normal course they paid the taxes for the years as and when the demands were raised. Subseq...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Iswar Kalimata Thakurani Vs. Shebaits of Sri Sri Iswar Kalimat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Cal366
Amitabha Dutta, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant 1 from an appellate decree and it arises out of a suit for a declaration and permanent and mandatory injunctions.2. The immovable property described in 'Ka' schedule and the movables described in 'Kha' schedule to the plaint are debutters of the property of the deity Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurani of Ghutia Bazar in the town of Chinsurah in the district of Hooghly. 'Ka' schedule property comprises of temple of the deeity and other structures within the temple compound. Three brothers Amulya, Puma and Prafulla Gangopadhyay were the shebaits of the deity. Purna transferred his 1/3rd share in the shebaitship to Prafulla who thereafter had 2/3rd share and Amulya had the remaining 1/3rd share in the shebaitship of the deity. By a written agreement between Prafulla and Amulya the pala or turn of worship was divided. Prafulla was to perform sheva puja of the deity for two years from Magh to Pous each Bengali year and Amulya was to do so in t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Supply Agency (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1985
Reported in: [1985]155ITR262(Cal)
Ajtt Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner, the following two questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, remuneration paid to the manager could be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for all the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of the entire interest for the first year under appeal was deductible revenue expenditure and also in reducing the payment of interest by Rs. 12,000 for each of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?' 2. The facts pertaining to the first question are briefly stated as under: The assessee paid a salary of Rs. 2,000 per month to its manager. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 24,000 being the salary paid to the manager for each of the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Cal)146,[1985]153ITR488(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court at the instance of the Commissioner :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record with the meaning of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in that view cancelling the amendment order made by the Income-tax Officer under the said section ?'2. The facts which are admitted and/or found by the Appellate Tribunal incorporated in the statement of case are stated as under :For the assessment year 1967-68, the ITO had granted rebate to the assessee under Section 2(4)(a) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1967, in respect of its export sales and profits up to June 5, 1966. In granting the rebate, the ITO had treated the cash subsidy received from the Iron and Steel Controller and also the excise duty drawback received from the Customs Departmen...
Tag this Judgment!Mcdonnell (1948) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD6(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee. In the first two grounds of appeal, the assessee submits that the order of the Commissioner as passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law and not supported by facts or circumstances of the case and that the Commissioner did not legally act in initiating the proceedings under Section 263 on the basis of the objection raised by the revenue audit and not in the exercise of the Commissioner's quasi-judicial powers and discretion as described by the above section.2. Briefly speaking, it is seen from the order impugned before us under Section 263 that on his examination of the assessment records, the Commissioner noticed that the assessment order for the assessment year 1980-81 passed by the ITO appeared to be erroneous and also detrimental to the interests of the revenue. He, accordingly, initiated proceedings under Section 263 for which the notice was issued. The Commissioner narrated the facts of the case that in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »