Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1972Cal417,[1975]98ITR273(Cal)
P.B. Mukharh, C.J.1. The appellant made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution raising a question of interpretation of Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act of 1961.2. For the assessment year 1961-62 the appellant filed his return voluntarily on December 1, 1961. On February 1, 1963, a notice under Section 23 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was issued and served on the appellant. On March 17, 1966, a further notice under Section 23 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was issued calling upon the appellant to attend on March 22, 1966 for completion of the assessment. On March 23, 1966 the appellant informed the Income-tax Officer that as the aforesaid notice was served on the appellant after 1 P.M. it was not possible for him to comply with it. Thereafter on December 31, 1966, a notice under Section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued by the respondent Income-tax Officer on the appellant to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal119,78CWN285
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the Plaintiff-Petitioner and is directed against on order dated the 5th October, 1972 passed by Shri D. Dutta Gupta, Munsif, 5th Court, Alipore, District 24-Parganas rejecting the petitioner's prayer for ad interim injunction at that stage in conection with his application for injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P. C. in Title Suit No. 195 of 1972.2. The facts leading on to the Rule are rather chequered but can be put in a short compass. The case of the Plaintiff/Petitioner inter alia is that he was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the Engineering Department under the Electric Lamp . issued a letter dated the 27th March, 1972 stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff was transferred from the Engineering Department to the Packing Department (Lamp Factory) with effect from the 20th March, 1972 and was directed to report to the Factory Manager immediately on receipt of the letter; and that being aggrieved by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]111ITR614(Cal)
ORDER9. The assessee-company carries on business in sale of dye stuffs and chemicals in India. Besides, it receives income being interest, royalty, technical fees and dividends from the Indian Cos. For this year it has filed a return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 1,08,90,033. In response to the notice Under Section 143(2), Shri Gangadharan of the Co. was present. I have discussed the case with him.2. During the year of account the company received the following amounts as interest from I.C.I. (India) Pvt. Ltd. : (a) Rs. 5,50,000 being interest on the loan advanced by the assessee-company for the purpose of purchase of shares in M/s. Atic Industries Ltd. by I.C.I. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (b) Interest on current account : Rs. 43,624. (c) Rs. 9,62,515 being interest on the loan advanced for purchase of shares in Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. 10. The company has filed tax deduction certificates in respect of the above three items of interest issued by the paying compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]117ITR256(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, arises in respect of the assessment year 1947-48. The assessee is alleged to be an association of persons consisting of one Rama Devi Agarwalla along with Asrafii Devi Agarwalla, Gini Devi Agarwalla, Bimala Devi Agarwalla and Chameli Devi Agarwalla.2. The facts as appearing from the statement of the case and the annexures thereto show that on the 8th August, 1945, the said five ladies purchased from one Regent Estate Ltd. half share in premises Nos. 31 and 32, Tincori Basu Lane and 38 and 39, Bhairab Dutt Lane, all in Salkia, Howrah, for a sum of Rs. 1,68,000. On the 2nd April, 1946, the said five ladies by a deed of conveyance sold their shares in the premises to one New India Building and Land Improvement Society Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 4,20,000 resulting in a surplus of Rs. 2,50,000 earned by them.3. On the 27th January, 1978, the ITO, Special Circle-Ill, Calcutta, issued a notice under Section 34(1)(a) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 81CWN699,[1978]114ITR379(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This appeal is against tl5e judgment andorder of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. dated November 27, 1975 [Cachar PlywoodLtd. v. Income-tax Officer : [1977]109ITR470(Cal) whereby the connectedrule was discharged.2. The petitioner-appellant is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was being duly assessed till the assessment year 1969-70 by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Karimganj. The Central Board of Direct Taxes passed the following order in respect of the assessee on December 23, 1972.'FNo. 185/141/72-IT(AI)Central Board of Direct Taxes,New Delhi, 23-12-72.OEDER 3. No. 572-J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 127 of the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby transfers the case, the particulars of which are mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule hereto annexed from the Income-tax Officer mentioned in column 4 to the Income-tax Officer mentioned in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1983]139ITR386(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned trial judge, discharging the rule nisi obtained by the appellant on his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant carries on his business as a government contractor, and he is an assessee under the I.T. Act, 1961. He filed his return for theA. Ys. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, within the period prescribed therefor. He was served with a notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on May 25, 1971, whereby he was called upon by the ITO to appear and produce the relevant evidence in support of the returns filed by him. The date of hearing of the assessment proceedings was fixed as June 17, 1971, which was subsequently adjourned to September 22, 1971. On that date, the appellant was heard by the ITO. He produced before the ITO, the payment certificate in original as given to him by the government, the bank pass book and other relevant documents in connection with the hearing of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 81CWN876,[1978]112ITR47(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned trial judge discharging the rule nisi obtained by the appellant on his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant carries on his business as a Government contractor, and he is an assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1961. He filed his return for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 within the period prescribed therefor. He was served with a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on May 25, 1971, whereby he was called upon by the Income-tax Officer to appear and produce the relevant evidence in support of the returns filed by him. The date of hearing of the assessment proceedings was fixed on June 17, 1971, which was subsequently adjourned to September 22, 1971. On that date, the appellant was heard by the Income-tax Officer. He produced before the Income-tax Officer the payment certificate in original as given to him by the Government, the bank pass book and oth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]122ITR72(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, M/s. Tube Mill (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'said company'), is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the petitioner No. 2, Sri Satya Narayan Mundhra, is a director and shareholder of the same. The said company is stated to be a regular assessee and duly assessed under the provisions of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It has been alleged that the said company held on lease a land under a lease deed between one Juggi Lal Kamalapat and Sri Jagadish Rai Jain, one of the directors of the said company. The said deed was executed on 25th April, 1962. It has been stated further that by the said deed, it was agreed by and between the parties that the lessor would not give notice of termination of the lease for a period of 10 years from 1st March, 1962. The lease in question was in respect of a total land of 5 bighas 1 cottah and 14 chataks 32 sq. ft. of land. It ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1979)2CompLJ85(Cal),[1979]120ITR593(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. dated April 28, 1972, whereby the rule nisi obtained by the appellant on an application under Article 226 was discharged.2. The appellant is a partnership-firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of buckets. For the assessment year 1958-59 (accounting period ending on December 31, 1957J, the appellant was assessed by the respondent No. 1 on an income of Rs 32,562 as computed according to the order of assessment dated January 30, 1959. According to the appellant, at the time of assessment, its representative produced copies of account of each creditor and disclosed fully and truly all transactions with each of the parties on production of all relevant vouchers, discharged hundis, statements of payments of interest with receipts, confirmation letters of creditors with respective income-tax file numbers, as asked for, also balance-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1983]53CompCas36(Cal)
Salil k. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 397, 398, etc., of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, for the appointment of a special officer and/or administrator, injunction restraining respondents Nos. 2-5 to act as directors and for a declaration that the meetings dated May 14, 1976, and December 11, 1976, are illegal, null and void and of no effect and for other reliefs.2. This application is really one in the series of applications which are the outcome of family disputes of the Mittals who are controlling a large number of companies and the respondent-company being the Universal Wires Ltd. is one of them. Petitioner No. 1, Mohan Lal Mittal, is the eldest brother. He along, with his son, wife and other stooges and henchmen, who are holding a block of shares in those companies, has constituted one group, and the other is constituted by the other brothers led by Inderson Mittal, Ratan Kumar Mittal, their relatives, henchmen and stooges. In the respondent-compa...
Tag this Judgment!