Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-05-1978
Reported in : [1979]119ITR431(Cal)
..... to in the said section meant benefits or amenities or perquisites in kind and did not include direct cash payments to the employee.14. he submitted that by the finance act, 1964, the word 'remuneration ' in clause (c)(iii) of the said section 40 was specifically deleted and the expression ' whether convertible into money or ..... thousand rupees per month for any period of his employment after the 28th day of february, 1963:...... ' 8. section 40(c)(iii) was amended by the finance act of 1964, whereafter it reads as follows :' (iii) any expenditure incurred after the 29th day of february, 1964, which results directly or indirectly in the provision ..... the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession...... '7. section 40(c)(iii) was originally introduced by the finance act, 1963, and provided, inter alia, as follows :' 40. amounts not deductible.--notwithstanding anything to thecontrary in sections 30 to 39, the following amounts shall not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-08-1978
Reported in : [1980]122ITR728(Cal)
..... however, we are satisfied that the penalty should have been imposed as per the law, which was in force prior to the amendment made by the finance act, 1968, as the amendment made by the finance act, 1968, does not relate to purely procedural matter but affects the right of an assessee [cit v. scindia steam navigation co, ltd. : [1961]42itr589( ..... but it is not disputed that when the amendment came into effect, that is to say, on 1st march, 1971, by virtue of the t.l. (amendment) act, 1970, the limitation had not expired and the amendment enlarged the period of limitation. therefore, the tribunal overruled this objection. another contention was that the iac did not ..... reference, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1961-62, the original assessments were made by the income-tax officer, under section 23(3) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. later, the ito reopened the assessments and brought to tax certain amounts on the ground that the amounts had escaped assessment under the original assessments. the amounts .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-08-1978
Reported in : [1981]127ITR842(Cal)
..... given.7. counsel for the assessee, however, drew our attention to sub-section (1a) of section 214 of the i.t. act which was inserted by section 16 of the finance act, 1968, and came into effect from april 1, 1968. though the assessment year involved is 1967-68, there is no dispute that sub-section (1a) of section 214 would be ..... :'229. recovery of penalties, fine, interest and other sums.--any sum imposed by way of interest, fine, penalty, or any other sum payable under the provisions of this act, shall be recoverable in the manner provided in this chapter for the recovery of arrears of tax.'15. in view of this provision, if parliament wanted that sub-section ( ..... fiction, such determination as in this case of excess interest paid would be determination of tax and, therefore, appealable under clause (c) of section 246 of the i.t. act, 1961. on behalf of the revenue, it was, however, urged that the question of excess interest as contemplated in sub-section (la) of section 214 was related to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-08-1978
Reported in : [1979]116ITR440(Cal)
..... supreme court, was that by the charging section, namely, section 3, income-tax was levied for a financial year at the rate prescribed by the annual finance act on the total income of the previous year. each previous year's income was the subject of separate assessment in the relevant assessment year. though the year ..... , and also section 33 of the i.t. act, 1961, by section 32 of the finance act, there was no provision in the act which provided security and protection of the documents filed or statements made during the assessment proceedings. in the case of daulat ram v. som nath : [1968]68itr779(delhi) , the delhi high court had to consider ..... this aspect of the matter in a proceeding instituted under the delhi rent control act, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-23-1978
Reported in : [1980]125ITR270(Cal)
..... the facts of the case. the fact that the bonus shares were not issued out of premiums received in cash and the consequent result in the light of the finance (no. 2) act, 1957, were, however, not realised by the ito at the time of assessment was made on the 19th november, 1957. the realisation came only subsequently. ..... has also relied on the following cases i united mercantile co. ltd. v. cit : [1967]64itr218(ker) , anandji haridas and co. (p) ltd. v. s. p. kushare : [1968]1scr661 , r. k. malhotra v. kasturbhai lalbhai : 1975crilj1545 and smt. sarla devi v. ced : [1976]103itr652(all) .11. before we deal with this contention of the learned advocates and ..... opinion. this change of opinion by itself is not sufficient. in support of his contentions. dr. pal has relied on the following decisions :7. cit v. a. raman and co.. : [1968]67itr11(sc) , bankipur club v. cit : [1971]82itr831(sc) , cit v. dinesh chandra h. shah : [1971]82itr367(sc) , reform flour mitts (p.) ltd. v. cit : [1973]88itr150 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-08-1978
Reported in : [1979]44STC31(Cal)
..... to granting of concessional rates for certain classes of sales andthe said provisions are not exactly in pari materia with the provisions of thebengal finance (sales tax) act and the rules made thereunder relating todeclaration forms, which were considered by the aforesaid two previousdivision benches of this court and now being considered ..... grantedby the said buyers. respondent no. 1, being aggrieved by the said decision,had preferred an appeal under section 20(1) of the bengal finance (sales tax)act, 1941. the assistant commissioner, commercial taxes, north circle, by hisorder dated 28th october, 1972, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed theassessment of ..... 31st december, 1968, again disallowed certain deductions of sales toother registered dealers on the ground of certain alleged defects in thedeclaration forms relating to the said sales.3. thereafter, thecommercial tax officer had issued a notice under section 11 read with section14(1) of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, upon .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-06-1978
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas296(Cal)
..... was appointed their managing agent. these companies were undertakings of the petitioner-company and were treated as the departments of the petitioner. the petitioner-company was providing finances, loans and guarantees for loans advanced by the banks in respect of the three companies, namely, shalimar tar, angelo brothers and lodna colliery. these three ..... a lien on 51% shares of the petitioner, owned by the said hungerford investment trust ltd. the suit (no. 2005 of 1965) was dismissed in 1968 and the appeal against that decision was also dismissed by this court in the appellate side in 1969. against that decision an appeal was taken to the supreme ..... alreadymentioned were manipulated and not genuine have not been admitted.the petitioner's allegation that the sale transactions were not completed andthat the resolutions passed were not. acted upon have also been denied.all the material allegations against respondent no. 4 have also beenchallenged as false. it has also been denied that v.k .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-20-1978
Reported in : [1980]124ITR856(Cal)
..... bill is dated 28th february, 1963. i ought to point out that by section 35 of the finance act, 1964, which came into effect on the 28th april, 1964, there is discontinuance of the super profits tax act, 1963. on 2nd of may, the surtax act, 1964, received the assent of the president.5. the relevant provisions of the 1964 ..... the rate or rates specified in the third schedule, 5. return of chargeable profits.--(1) in the case of every company whose chargeable profits assessable under this act exceeded during the previous year the amount of statutory deduction, its principal officer, or where in the case of a non-resident company any person has been treated ..... act, 1961 (xliii of 1961); (iv) the debentures, if any, issued by it to the public iprovided that according to the terms and conditions of issue of such debentures, they are not redeemable before the expiry of a period of seven years from the date of issue thereof ; and (v) any moneys borrowed by it from government or the industrial finance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-15-1978
Reported in : [1979]117ITR492(Cal)
..... v. cit [1945] 13 itr 221. in this case, the judicial committee held that the indian i.t. act, 1922, would mean the act as amended at the date of the passing of the finance acts and would necessarily include all alterations made by the amending act which might have already come into force on the 1st april of the assessment year. (b) cit v ..... section 32- (i) the aggregate of all deductions in respect of depreciation made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1a) of section 32 or under the indian income-tax act, 1922 (11 of 1922),......shall, in no case, exceed the actualcost to the assessee of the......machinery, plant....... as the case may be : explanation.--where a capital asset is ..... said order of the ito. the aac held that expln. 7 to section 43(1) of the i.t. act, 1961, was not applicable in the facts of the case inasmuch as the same which was inserted by the finance (no. 2) act, 1967, was made effective from the 1st april, 1967. he held further that in the instant case the amalgamation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-07-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Cal289,83CWN393
..... order to appreciate the claim of the plaintiff it is necessary to refer to certain facts. the defendant no. 10 is an association of foreign exchange and finance brokers belonging to calcutta. in conducting its affairs, the defendant association and its members are governed by the rules and regulations of the said association. one of ..... misra and co., of 12a, netaji subhas road, calcutta which was an original member of the defendant no. 10 association. under the instrument dated 30th of march, 1968 the name of the partnership was changed to 'padia & co.' of which the plaintiff continued to be a partner until the time mentioned hereinafter. the said firm of ..... in said s. k. chopra the plaintiff had contemplated induction of the proprietor or partners of batliboi & karani in an indirect way and therefore the defendants acting in good faith had rejected the application of the plaintiff. it was, further, asserted that plaintiff had no cause for complaint and all applications were duly considered .....
Tag this Judgment!