Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)0CALLT124(HC),92CWN507
Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J.1. The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 397 of 1983 in the 2nd Court of the learned Munsif at Alipore, 24-Parganas, against the original opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner's case as made out in the plaint, inter alia, was that he was a sub-tenant in respect of one Shop room in premises No. 4/1, Wattagunj Street, now known as Kabithirtha Sarani, Calcutta, at a monthly rental of 11s. 90 per month inclusive of electricity charges under the opposite party No. 2 who was a tenant in respect of the said premises under the original opposite party No. 1. The petitioner's further case was that on the 21st September, 1964 the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the opposite party No. 2 by which the petitioner was inducted as a sub-tenant with effect from 1st September 1964 to which one Md. Ismail of Dr. Sudhir Bose Road, was one of the attesting witnesses. Thereafter such agreement was ratified by another indentu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1987Cal210,91CWN799
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The only question that has arisen for our consideration in this appeal is what should be the relevant date with reference to which the Court shall make a valuation under Section 4(1) of the Partition Act, 1893. Under the first paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, if a co-owner of an immovable property transfers his share, the transferee thereby acquires the transferor's right to joint possession and also his right to enforce partition. But the second paragraph of that section, however, provides that if the property transferred is a share in a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family and the transferee is not a member of that family, then the transferee does not acquire any right to joint possession and all that he acquires by such transfer is only a right to enforce partition. But as a result of Section 4 of the Partition Act even that right to enforce partition may be reduced almost to a bare right to sue without a right to the share...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]168ITR493(Cal)
Monjula Bose, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal, as directed, 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 Tribunal's finding that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of establishing the identification of C.B. Singh and Vandana Sales Corporation to whom commission was alleged to have been paid is contrary to the evidence on record or is otherwise unreasonable '2. The facts which are material and the proceedings leading up to this reference are as follows :3. Mather & Platt (India) Ltd., the assessee, carries on the business of manufacture and supply of, inter alia, food processing and other machinery. In the year 1974, the assessee sold and supplied to the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., M/s. Canners (India) Ltd. and the United Co-operative Distillery Ltd. certain machinery. The said transactions were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)61CTR(Cal)226,[1987]165ITR249(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works, the assessee, is a partnership firm registered under the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1963-64, the relevant accounting year ending on March 31, 1963, the assessee filed its return of income on November 8, 1963. Subsequently, on December 31, 1965, the assessee made a voluntary disclosure in which amounts credited in the accounts of the assessee as loans from different parties were disclosed to be the income of the assessee. Rupees 2,94,000 was stated to be the peak credit in the relevant assessment year. Rupees 19,782 was also shown in the accounts of the assessee as interest paid to the alleged creditors on the said loans. Such interest was also disclosed to be the income of the assessee in the said assessment year.2. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 29, 1967, and a hearing was fixed on November 16, 1967. In making the assessment, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)21ITD302(Kol.)
1. As these appeals filed by the department give rise to common issues they were heard together and for the sake of convenience, are being disposed of by this single order.2. Only one common ground is raised in these appeals which is as follows : That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and timely and that capital gain of Rs. 24,330 could not be included in the gifted asset for the purpose of Section 4(1)(a)(ii).For the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, the assessee, an individual, filed returns under Section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') on 29-11-1969, 28-10-1970, 27-7-1971 and 1-8-1973, respectively. Original assessments for the four assessment years were made by the WTO on 22-1-1971, 10-12-1971, 7-12-1971 and 20-3-1976 on a net wealth of Rs. 25,56,878, Rs. 34,23,030, Rs. 33,02,016 and Rs. 19,55,13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1988Cal46
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendants and it arises out of a suit for redemption of mortgage and of charge, rendition of accounts, recovery of money over paid and for other consequential reliefs.2. The case of the plaintiff is as under. The plaintiff was incorporated as a private limited company on Mar. 15, 1951 for exhibition of Cinematographic Films with three directors on Board, namely, Ranatsen Ghose, Birendra Mohan Bhar and Dhanaballav Pal. The plaintiff therefore purchased three vacant plots of land at Khardah in the district of 24-Paraganas al aprice of Rs. 23,500/- with a view to constructing a cinema house thereon and starting a cinema exhibition business of its own under the name and style of 'Sandhya Cinema Corporation.' Thereafter the plaintiff mortgaged the said land to Smt. Ramarani Pal, wife of its director Dhanaballav Pal, for Rs. 10,000/- and al the relevant time the mortgage money along with interest thereon amounted to Rs. 12,7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1987(13)ECC175,1987(13)LC165(Calcutta),1987(31)ELT30(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. The petitioner carries on business of importation as a holder of letter of authority of various licences. One M/s. Zenith Enterprises of Assam held an import licence for Rs. 6,54,900/- to import inter alia, secondary G.P. Coils. The said Zenith Enterprises issued a letter of authority in favour of the petitioner to import G.P. Coils to the extent of Rs. 3,31,000/- against the said licence. The petitioner entered into a contract on 25th September, 1984 with one Macpherson Exports Ltd. of London for purchase of 250 Metric Tonne of secondary G.P. Coils in thickness below 0.6 mm and width exceeding 800 mm at a price of U.S. $ 185 per Metric Tonne C & F Calcutta.2. In terms of the said contract the said foreign seller shipped a consignment of 40 coils of secondary G.P. Sheets in Coils from Japan in Vessel S.S. Vishva Yash under the bill of Lading No. 2, dated 8th April, 1985. The said vessel arrived at Calcutta Port on 27th March, 1986 and the petitioner filed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)0CALLT29(HC)
S.S. Ganguly, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of conviction passed by Shri D. Banerjee, Sessions judge, Midnapore Under Section 302 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial case No. XVI of April, 1983 sentencing the accused--appellant Dulal Nayek of Village Phulpahari under Police Station--Kotwali to imprisonment for life.2. On allegation that he had killed his wife, Bari Nayek by hitting her violently on her head twice with the wooden leg of a cot, the appellant stood his trial before the learned Sessions Judge who finding the prosecution case established against him beyond any reasonable doubt and disbelieving his plea of insanity has convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above. Hence, this appeal.3. It is urged from the side of the appellant that the prosecution case is false that the witnesses are not reliable and that the learned Judge has convicted the appellant wrongly by relying upon the same. It is also urged that the learned Judge made a mistake by refusing to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)0CALLT716(HC),91CWN805
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition of the appellant challenging the termination of his service by the General Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.2. The appellant's case may be stated as follows :--The appellant was appointed as Assistant Manager effective from 20th September, 1969 by me Howran Insurance Co. Ltd. The said letter of appointment is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The appellant has contended that after the completion of the probationary period, the appellant became a permanent employee of the said Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd. In September, 1972, the General Assurance business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 came into force and the said Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd. was amalgamated with some other Insurance Companies and such Insurance Companies including the said Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd. were merged with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The said New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is a Government of India Undertaking and as such 'Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)20ITD701(Kol.)
1. As both these appeals filed by the department are directed against the order dated 16-4-1986 passed by the AAC and give rise to common issues, they were heard together and for the sake of convenience, they are disposed of by a single order.2. The dispute in these appeals for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 relates to the valuation of 830 unquoted equity shares of Otto India (P.) Ltd. The assessee disclosed the value of these shares for both the assessment years on the basis of yield method. Otto India (P.) Ltd. is a going company which has been distributing maximum amount of dividend regularly for years in the past. The WTO did not accept the valuation disclosed by the assessee and he valued the shares by following the break-up value method following the principle laid down in Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.3. The assessee appealed to the AAC before whom it was contended that Rule 1D is directory and not mandatory and that valuation of unquoted equity shares should ...
Tag this Judgment!