Kolkata Court March 1985 Judgments
Bimla Kanta Sengupta Vs. Sarojini Koner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Cal275,1985(2)CHN1,89CWN860
S.R. Roy, J.1. This appeal arising out of a probate proceeding raises a short but tricky point, not hitherto untraversed but to some extent clouded by a host of judicial decisions, some touching the point rather tangentially and some holding conflicting views. The point has been raised from time to time till recent years demanding meticulous judicial care and attention but still leaving scope for some controversy.2. The petitioner-appellant before us as executor of the Will left by one Sarala Bala Dasi, started a proceeding for the probate of the said Will before the District Delegate at Rampurhat, being Probate Case No. 36 of 1980.3. A dispute having been raised by the opposite party, a daughter of Sarala Bala, regarding the genuineness of the Will, the matter became contentious and on Aug. 8, 1980 the application was registered as Probate Case No. 56 of 1980 before the learned District Judge, Birbhum.4. The case was set down for hearing on June 2, 1983 before a learned Additional Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Pannalal Sethi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: [1987]164ITR698(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. One Smt. K.K. Sethi who died on May 10, 1960, executed a deed of settlement dated August 21, 1940 by virtue of which she purported to create a trust of certain immovable properties and included therein three properties; (1) 70, Nalini Sett Road (house) and two plots of land at (2) 103, Lake Road and (3) 18/1, Mudiali Road. The said deceased and one Sri Mohanlal Putni were the trustees of the said trust. In the estate duty proceedings, the accountable person, Pannalal Sethi, one of the sons of the deceased, claimed, inter alia, on the basis of the said deed that the property should be held to be liable to estate duty under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, only to the extent to which the settlor was not excluded from the possession and enjoyment of the gifted property.2. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, however, on a consideration of the terms of the deed of settlement mentioned above, held that the settlor had reserved to herself an interest for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (P.) Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR212(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1962-63, for which the relevantprevious year ended on March 31, 1962. The relevant facts of this case as will appear from the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal are stated here under.2. In the course of the assessment proceedings of the assessee which is a private limited company, the Income-tax Officer found that a total amount of Rs. 73,308 was paid to one Sri M. M. Thapar, son of late Sri K. C. Thapar, which consisted of salary of Rs. 36,000 and share of profit of Rs. 37,308. When called upon to explain the reason for giving such high remuneration, the assessee in its letter dated March 8, 1967, stated that Sri M. M. Thapar had worked in the year under consideration as before as director and had also attended 15 out of 26 directors' meetings. The assessee further submitted before the Income-tax Officer that the share of profit allowed during the accounting ye...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Tax Officer, Bankura Charge and ors. Vs. Gourangalal Chatte ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC394(Cal)
1. By this application filed in the concerned appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 61 of 1985, which was presented on 7th January, 1985, the appellants, who were respondents in the writ proceeding, are asking for stay of operation of the order as passed by Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J., on 18th December, 1984. By such order, the learned Judge has directed, after hearing the parties, the issue of an order restraining the appellants before us from taking any steps and/or proceeding for the purpose of levy, imposition and collection of purchase tax and from withholding the issue of declaration forms and giving any effect to or taking any steps whatsoever in pursuance of the orders of assessment and notices of demand for the periods from 28th November, 1980 to 31st March, 1981 and from 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 and from further proceeding for assessment upto the period four quarters ending 31st March, 1984, till the disposal of the application, on condition that furnishing security by way o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.K. Birla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR348(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment for the assessment year 1966-67 was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that income had escaped assessment as the speculation income earned in the name of Kumari Manjusri Birla, the daughter of the assessee, really belonged to the assessee. Kumari Manjusri Birla, the daughter of the assessee, was a minor during the assessment year 1966-67. She had a bank account in her name. The assessee as guardian of his minor daughter transacted speculation business In shares through the brokers, M/s. Kothari Trading Co. Ltd. and M/s. Jhawar & Co. The Income-tax Officer examined the two brokers to enquire at whose instructions those transactions were entered into. They replied that the contracts were made on the instructions of the assessee. The assessee's contention against the inclusion of the speculation income in the name of Kumari Manjusri Birla was that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ghosh and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Cal)368,[1986]159ITR459(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the business was carried on by the receiver appointed by theHigh Court, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to continuation of registration ?'2. In the assessment of the assessee, Ghosh & Sons, for the assessment year 1961-62, the Income-tax Officer had adopted the status as Hindu undivided family as against the status of registered firm claimed by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, granted registration to the assessee which was confirmed by the Tribunal by the order dated June 1, 1970. The registration was allowed to the assessee till the assessment year 1967-68. In 1967, a receiver was appointed to run the bu...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Mukti Maitra Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal54,90CWN1023
ORDERBhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. This writ petition was moved by a senior practising Advocate of this Court who is also a Senior Panelled Advocate of the State of West Bengal, for conducting cases both civil and criminal, against the inaction on the part of the State Government in the matter of payment of her bills which are payble by the State Government. The case of the petitioner is that in Nov. 1983 on being engaged by the State Government, the petitioner wentto New Delhi for arguing a case on behalf of the State of West Bengal before the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner went to New Delhi on 12th Nov., 1983 by Air and returned to Calcutta on 21st Nov., 1983 in the similar manner. The petitioner had to purchase tickets from her own pocket. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner was assured by the respondent that the petitioner would be provided with a car at the New Delhi Airport for taking her to Bangabhavan where it was alleged that her accommodation for st...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mira Mehta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Cal)408,[1985]155ITR765(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court,for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of property belonging to the firm ?' 2. The facts in brief are stated hereunder : The assessee is a partner in a partnership firm. The partners originally were the members of the same family. The house property in which the partners were residing was owned by the partners. It was treated as the property of the firm which is carrying on business. In the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee, exemption was claimed in respect of the said house property on the ground that the assessee had been residing there even though the property formed a part of the assets of the partnership firm. The justificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gordhandas Jerambhai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: [1985]154ITR288(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Gordhandas Jerambhai, the assessee, a registered firm, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1971-72, the corresponding previous year ending on October 31, 1970. In the assessment proceeding, the assessee claimed weighted deduction for export markets development allowance under Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO rejected the claim on the ground that full details and evidence had not been furnished.2. The assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment to the AAC, inter alia, against the disallowance of its claim under Section 35B. Evidence was produced before the AAC to establish that the assessee was exporting jute and tea to foreign countries and in connection therewith had incurred travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 6,337. The AAC accepted the evidence and directed the ITO to allow deduction to the assessee under Section 35B to extent as claimed.3. Against the order of the AAC, the assessee preferred a further appeal to the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Babcock and Willcox of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1985
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Cal)235
Ray, J. - This rule issued on an application of the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, calls upon M/s. Babcock & Willcox of India Ltd., the assessee, to show cause why this court should not direct the Tribunal to refer the following question, stated to be a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the CIT (A) that the sum of Rs. 1,99,781 paid by the assessee-company to its employees as customary bonus was an allowable deduction ?'2. The Revenue contends that in view of the Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance promulgated on 25-9-1975, the Tribunal was not justified in applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal AIR 1979 SC 876, and allow the assessees deduction for the bonus paid.3. It has been found as a fact that the assessee had paid similar bonus in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »