Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1981]128ITR326(Cal)
C.K. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated the 22nd September, 1976, passed by the court below discharging the rule and dismissing a writ petition made by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice dated 20th March, 1969, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, issued by the lTO, 'C' Ward, Companies District-I, Calcutta, the respondent No. 1.2. The appellant, M/s. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd., is a company. It carries oh business, inter alia, in jute, gunny and shares and also derives income from property, dividends and interest on securities. The income-tax assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 1952-53, the relevant accounting period being from 17th July, 1950, to 29th October, 1951, was completed by C.R. Nair, the then ITO, Companies District-I, Calcutta, on the 29th March, 1957, under Section 23(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The appellant had filed its balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 85CWN431,[1981]132ITR308(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In the background of certain rather interesting facts, we are asked to answer the following questions referred to us in this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the probate of the will having been granted by the High Court, it was competent for the Tribunal to go into the question as to the genuineness of the will of the deceased, Satyanarayan Agarwalla, dated October 11, 1956 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in view of Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was justified in law in holding that the said will executed by late Satyanarayan Agarwalla proved and registered in the High Court at Calcutta in the course of probate proceedings being Matter No. 156 of 1976 was not a genuine will ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirmin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1983]141ITR140(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to this court:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were not saved for the purpose of completing the assessment under Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after April 1, 1962, in a case where a notice under Section 22(2) has been validly served prior to that date but no return had been filed and in that view cancelling the order under Section 23(4) for the assessment year 1961-62 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable and the order under Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could not be sustained as having been passed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1982)1ITD160(Kol.)
1. These appeals by the assessee, Ram Gopal Neotia of Calcutta, an individual, directed against four different orders of the IAC, Range VII, Calcutta, each dated 31-3-1977 under Section 271(1)(c), levying penalties of Rs. 2,600 for the assessment year 1958-59, Rs. 5,279 for the assessment year 1959-60, Rs. 2,304 for the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 3,189 for the assessment year 1961-62, for having concealed the particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof for each of the said years, have been consolidated, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. As already stated, the years of assessment involved are 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 for which the respective previous years ended 31-3-1958, 31-3-1959, 31-3-1960 and 31-3-1961.2. The admitted facts in the present appeals and/or found by us are that on the returns originally filed by the assessee for the years under consideration, the ITO completed the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1985(4)ECC41,1982(10)ELT902(Cal)
ORDERManasnath Roy, J.1. The petitioners have claimed to be partners of the registered partnership firm M/s. Kantilal Chandulal and Company (hereinafter referred to as the said firm) which had and has the official place of business at 208, Jamunalal Bazaz Street, Calcutta-7. The petitioners have stated to be carrying on business as dealers in diamonds and other precious stones. It was their case that in course of such business, they were required to buy diamonds and jewellery from different parts of India and sell them to their customers at Calcutta. It was also stated by the petitioners that purchases made from the parties, were and are duly entered into the books of accounts of the said Firm and apart from purchase and sale of the materials as mentioned above, the petitioners used to receive diamonds and jewellery from various places, for the purpose of repairing and/or sale on commission basis. It has also been categorically stated by the petitioners that the parties, from whom they...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)IILLJ122Cal
R.N. Pyne, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Dipak Kumar Sen, J. dated 31st January, 1977 dismissing the appellant's suit filed against the respondents. A reference to the relevant facts of this case may be made.2. On 8th April, 1948 the appellant, A.J. Vaswani (hereinafter referred to as 'Vaswani'), who migrated from West Pakistan, was appointed in the post of Preventive Officer, Grade I in the Customs Department. Thereafter, in May 1961 the appellant was promoted to the post of Senior Grade Preventive Officer in the Customs Department. At the material time, he was posted as Senior Seizure Shed Officer at the Customs House, Calcutta.3. On August 25, 1961 a passenger namely Mrs. S.B. Dadlani arrived at Dum Dum Airport with 2 (two) suit-cases which were detained at the Airport. On 26th August, 1961 the said two suit-cases were brought in sealed conditions from Dum Dum Airport to the Seizure Shed at Customs House, Calcutta. Vaswani made the inventory of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1986]59CompCas46(Cal)
Basu, J.1. This is an application under Sections 397 and 398 read with Sections 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts relating to the making of the present application may be noted.2. Since 1937-38, M/s. B.M. Singh and Sons, petitioner No. 5 herein, had business association and connection with A.B. Kanthal Sweden, which later on amalgamated with the Bnlten group of industries. The company is now known as ' Bulten Kanthal A.B. ', which is respondent No. 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as ' the Swedish company ').3. Petitioner No. 5 used to sell the products of the Swedish company which were electrical resistance wires and strips in India.4. In July, 1961, A.B. Kanthal, prior to its amalgamation with the Bulten group, applied to the Government of India for permission to set up an electrical resistance wires and strips mill in India. This proposal, which is annexure 'B' to the main petition, envisaged 60% of the shares of the propo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1984)8ITD537(Kol.)
1. All these appeals involve common points. They are disposed of by a common order.2. In these appeals, filed by the assessee, various grounds regarding valuation have been taken. But at the time of hearing the following common additional ground has been raised: For that the return of wealth for the relevant assessment year having filed along with the disclosure after the statutory period provided under the Wealth-tax Act, the said return is an invalid one and non est in the eye of law and as such the assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the said invalid return is illegal and invalid and is also barred by limitation.Since the additional ground is pure question of law, the same is admitted. In support of the plea raised in the additional ground Dr.Pal for the assessee contended that the assessments made are invalid and illegal inasmuch as the returns on the basis of which proceedings for assessments were taken, are not returns under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957('the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1985Cal96,[1987]61CompCas245(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. Hanuman Synthetics Ltd., the Respondent No. 1, entered into an agreement to purchase from the Respondent No. 3, J. B. International, Singapore, 75 Metric Tonnes of Viscose Staple Fibre having semi dull normal tenacity, of Japanese or South Korean origin of the specification 1.5 Deniar x 51 MM. The Central Bank of India opened a Letter of Credit dated February 21, 1983 at the request of Hanuman Synthetics Ltd. The Letter of Credit was opened in favour of J. B. International, the Respondent No. 3, herein. The Letter of Credit was an irrevocable and transferable Letter of Credit. Under the Letter of Credit, it was stipulated that J. B. International would be entitled to avail and/or operate the same by drafts drawn at 120 days from the date of the Bill of Lading which was 17th March, 1983 and by presentation of the following documents : --(a) signed commercial invoice in quadruplicate covering shipments of VISCOS Staple Fibre;(b) certificate of origin in duplicate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)0CALLT1(HC),91CWN631
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. An interesting question as regards the jurisdiction of the writ Court in matters of Court Martial in General, falls for determination in this writ petition.2. While it is true that Army personnel ought to be subjected to strictest form of discipline and Article 33 of the Constitution has conferred powers on to the Parliament to abridge the rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution in respect of the members of the Armed Forces, but does that mean and imply that the Army Personnel would be denuded of the Constitutional privileges as guaranteed under the Constitution. Can it be said that the Army Personnel form a class of citizens not entitled to the Constitution's benefits and are outside the purview of the Constitution. To answer above in the affirmative in my view, would be a violent departure to the wishes of the framers of our Constitution. An Army Personnel is as much citizen as any other individual citizen of this country. At this juncture it ...
Tag this Judgment!