Kolkata Court February 1985 Judgments

Macneill and Magor Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mouhsen Ali and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1985Cal460

D.K. Sen, J.1. Macneilt and Magor Ltd.. the plaintiff No. 1 and Denzil G. Stephens, the plaintiff No. 2. instituted this Suit on or about the 29th Aug.. 1979 against Mohsen Ali. the defendant No. 1 and M. H. Khaleeli. the defendant No. 2, claiming, inter alia.a) A declaration that the defendants are not entitled to cause any obstruction to or interfere with the free ingress and egress to and from the building at premises No. 217. Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. Calcutta through the Northern Gate and the user by the plaintiffs of a space delineated in the sketch plan annexed to the Plaint.b) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to have free ingress and egress to and from either flat in the said building through the said northern gate and/ or user of the said space for the aforesaid purposes or from fixing any chain or any otfcer device for obstructing the opening of the said gate or from creating any other obstruction or...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bank of China (In Liquidation)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1985]58CompCas285(Cal),[1985]154ITR617(Cal)

Ajit R. Sengupta, J.1. The question in this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is whether the Bank of China (in liquidation) should be assessed to income-tax on the footing that it is a company resident in India.2. By an order of the High Court at Calcutta dated December 10, 1962, in Company Petition No. 229 of 1962 [Bank of China, In re [1964] 34 Comp Cas 90 (Cal)], moved by the Reserve Bank of India under Sections 457 and 456 read with Section 491 of the Companies Act, 1956, the assessee-company, Bank of China, went into liquidation. The official liquidatior was appointed as the liquidator of the assessee-bank and the entire assets and liabilities of the assessee-bank came under the control and management of the High Court.3. While framing the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76, the ITO treated the assessee as a non-resident company. Sources of income of the assessee were from interest and rent. The said assessment was made on the official liquidator.4. Bei...

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Sunanda Bose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1985]153ITR384(Cal)

Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the CED, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the sum of the Rs. 25,000 being the estimated compensation payable by the Government of West Bengal on acquisition of agricultural land of the deceased in 1953 is not includible in the principal value of the deceased under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'2. The facts of this case are briefly stated hereafter:'The deceased, Sri Sushil Kumar Roychowdhury, died intestate on November 1, 1963. The agricultural land of the deceased in excess of 25 acres was acquired by the Government of West Bengal in 1955. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty observed that the compensation from the Government of West Bengal had not been settled and that compensation roll had not been prepared and the m...

Indian Explosives Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Cal)19,[1985]153ITR340(Cal)

Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1967-68 under Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 11,43,333 representing the increase in the share capital of the assessor company as a result of capitalisation of part of its reserves was not liable to be included in the capital base under Rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the inclusion of the aforementioned sum of Rs. 11,43,333 in the capital base in the original assessment for the assessment year 1967-68 was a mistake apparent from the record and that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to r...

Dipak Puri Vs. 5th Industrial Tribunal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1986)IILLJ157Cal

ORDERU.C. Banerjee, J.1. This application is directed against an order passed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal being Order No. 40 dated 15th September, 1982.2. On 19th January, the Government of West Bengal Labour Department referred the dispute between M/s. Met Industries of 166 Jessore Road, Calcutta-55 and their workmen represented by E.M.C. Mazdoor Union and Electrical Manufacturing Co. and other workmen Union. The issues referred to the Industrial Tribunal are as follows:1. Whether the lockout of the factory with effect from 7th July, 1977 is justified?2. Whether the closure of the factory with effect from 20th October, 1977 is real -3. To what relief, if any, are the workmen entitled?3. After the commencement of the proceeding the Tribunal on 23rd February, 1980 re- fused the prayer of the workmen for leave to be represented by lawyer. The matter came up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on 24th April, 1981 before P.C. Borooah J. (as he then was). At the heari...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agarpara Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1971-72 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,061 representing the amount of unpaid bonus written back in the accounts could be assessed under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessment year 1971-72?'2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee wrote off liabilities totalling to Rs. 84,508.40 including unpaid bonus amounting to Rs. 50,061.61 made up of the following items :Unpaid bonusAmount Rs.31-3-196513,318.6431-3-196626,557.4031-3-196710,185.57 50,061.61The Income-tax Officer in the above assessment year added the said amount of Rs. 50,061 in respect of unpaid bonus to the total income of the assessee without any discussion. The assessee, accordingly, took up the matter in its objection to the draft ...

Hanumanmall Bengani Vs. Appellate Controller of Estate

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (1985)12ITD37(Kol.)

1. The President under Section 63(11) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, read with Section 5A(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has referred the following question for the decision of the Third Member : Whether the multiple to be adopted for the purpose of computing the market value of the property located at 25A, Khagendra Chatterjee Road, Calcutta, for the purpose of computation of net principal value of the estate of the deceased should be taken to be 8.5 or 12 2. Smt. Mina Devi Bengani expired on 24-1-1979. She was owning before her death movable and immovable properties. The immovable property owned by her included the property of 25A, Khagendra Chatterjee Road, Calcutta. This property consisted of about 44 god owns, which were used for storing raw jute and other materials. The gross rent receivable from the god owns amounted to Rs. 46,462. The ITO after considering the outgoings, took the net rent of the god owns at Rs. 32,965. The accountable person declared the value of this p...

Assam Oil Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1987]168ITR159(Cal)

Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The assessee prays for a certificate that he has a fit case to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of this court in CIT v. Assam Oil Co. Ltd. : [1982]133ITR204(Cal) . Learned advocate for the assessee has submitted that the following two substantial questions of general importance arise from the judgment:' (a) Whether a decision of a High Court can constitute information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the same is subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court ?(b) Whether in a reassessment under the said Section 147(b), the Income-tax Officer can cover escapement of assessment not related to or connected with the information on which such reopening had been made or with any subsequent information which might have come into his possession prior to reassessment?'.2. In our view, the said questions are of general importance. Decisions of different High Courts relevant to the questions were cited by learned advo...

Debi Prasanna Roy Sharma Vs. Abdul Mannan and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1985CriLJ1020

ORDERJitendra Nath Chaudhuri, J.1. This application under section 401 and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises out of an impugned order dated 28-5-80 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur (District Murshidabad) in G.R. Case No. 33C of 1977 (T.R. 66 of 1977) by which the learned Magistrate discharged the accused opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the notice under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) had been sent to the accused before the institution of the prosecution against him and not 'after the institution of the prosecution' against him.2. The facts of this case may be shortly stated as follows:It is the prosecution case that the present petitioner inspected the shop of the accused opposite party No. 1 on 29-11-76 situated at Goffurpur Ward No. 2 under Jangipur Municipality. The petitioner is the Food Inspector appointed by the State Government under secti...

Bengal Glass and Silicate Works Vs. Lalit Mohan Bijlani and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1986Cal57

ORDERP.K. Majumdar, J.1. This is an application by the defendant 1 for an order, inter alia, that the plaint filed in this suit be taken off the file and be rejected; and leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked.2. In or about December, 1983 the plaintiff instituted this suit in this Court praying, inter alia, (a) Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent; (b) Declaration that the plaintiff is the monthly tenant of Flat No. 51 of premises No. 6. Mayfair Road. Calcutta more fully described in a schedule annexed to the plaint; (c) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and/or their servants, agents, workmen, employees or any other person or persons claiming through the defendants from in any way disturbing or obstructing or doing any act which will in any way interfere with the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the said Flat No. 51 at premises No. 6, Mayfair Road, Calcutta, (d) perpetual injunction restraining the defen...