Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]119ITR785(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with four assessment years, namely, assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 and the relevent accounting years are Diwali years 2022 to 2025 respectively.2. The assessee is a private limited company. By a lease dated the 21st September, 1954, entered into between the assessee and one Maharaja Probirendra Mohau Tagore, the latter gave on lease, ' all these messuages, lands, hereditaments and premises No. 26, Prosanna Kumar Tagore Street, commonly known as ' Tagore Castle' in the town of Calcutta' to the assessee for a period of 84 years with an option of renewal for a further period of 7 years. In order to appreciate the contentions urged in this case, it would be necessary to set out in extenso the relevant clauses of the said lease dated the 21st September, 1954. In the recital clause it was stated, inter alia, as follows :'And Whereas the Lessee has agreed to take a lease for the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1978CriLJ842
P.C. Borooah, J.1. On the basis of an information lodged by an Assistant Controller, Telegraph Stores. Hastings on 28-7-73 at the Wargunge Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on 24-7-73 the accused petitioners were apprehended from a timber godown at 12A, Orphan-gunge Road and were found in possession of 33 bundles of copper wire, a case Under Sections 380/411/120B of the IPC was registered at the said police station. On completion of investigation the Police submitted a charge sheet against the petitioners on 12-11-74 Under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, LXXIV of 1950 (hereinafter the Act), On receipt of the charge sheet the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore took cognizance and transferred the case to the file of another Judicial Magistrate for trial. The transferee Magistrate framed a charge against the petitioners Under Section 5 of the Act. An objection was then raised on behalf of the petitioners that the cognizance taken by the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]116ITR219(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the provision of West Bengal Act No. II of 1963, as amended by the West Bengal Act No. XXXIX of 1963, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 84,000 was not deductible in computing the total income of the assessee ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1964-65 to 1967-68. This question is an echo from the old history of Bengal. Nawab of Murshidabad was the Nawab Nazim and Subedar of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and was entitled to the title of Nawab Nazim and the authority, dignity, stipend, pay, allowances, privileges and rights thereof and up to 1891, the said Nawab of Murshidabad was receiving these allowances and stipends for the maintenance of his dignity. Disputes had arisen between the Nawab, the members of his family and the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal39,82CWN1018
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act two questions fall for consideration. The first question, is, what is the clause of the arbitration agreement between the parties and the second question is, whether the authority of the arbitrator named in the clause submitted on behalf of the respondent should be revoked. It is not necessary to set out in very much detail the facts of the case. But it appears that the respondent is a Government of India undertaking and the petitioner is a private limited company. Previously it was Pench Steels Limited and subsequently it was amalgamated with the petitioner company. By and under the purchase order dated the 24th June, 1975 executed by and on behalf of the respondent and accepted on behalf of the said company by the petitioner the respondent had agreed to purchase and the petitioner had agreed to sell 1000 metric tons of ingots of different varieties and sizes at agreed rate of Rupees 1,500/- per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas197(Cal),1978CriLJ839
P.C. Borooah, J. 1. The petitioners in all these rules are being prosecuted in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, under the provisions of Sections 14(1A), 14(2), 14A(1) and 14AA of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952, read with para, 76(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme (hereinafter ' the Act and the Scheme ') on the basis of complaints filed by the provident fund inspector, West Bengal.2. The common question of law which arises in all these rules is whether a complaint can be lodged and cognizance taken after a period of one year from the date of the alleged contravention of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Scheme ?3. According to the complaints the first petitioner along with petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are its directors had not paid the employer's and employees' share of the contributions and administrative charges for the different months which are the subject-matter of the cases started against them.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]116ITR516(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee before it on the ground that no competent appeal lay before the AAC ?'2. In order to appreciate the question posed, a few facts will have to be stated. The question arises with reference to the action of the ITO under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62, whereby he had withdrawn super-tax rebate which, according to him, was allowed in excess at the time of the original assessment. The ITO passed the order on 31st August, 1968. The action of passing the order-under Section 154 was due to the order of the AAC. The assessee went up in appeal to the AAC, who observed, inter alia, as follows :'The revision has been made for the reason that the income from dividends suffered super-tax at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]116ITR440(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference arises out of the proceedings for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the corresponding previous years having ended on 31st December, 1961, and 28th February, 1962, respectively. The income-tax assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 58,47,380 and Rs. 31,13,458 on 22nd February, 1964, and 23rd March, 1964, for the two assessment years respectively. The assessee had discontinued its business in India on 28th February, 1962, and had filed a claim under Section 25(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on 27th March, 1962. In the said claim, it was stated by the assessee as under :'With reference to our letter dated 12th March, 1962, and in accordance with the provisions of the above Section whereby no income-tax and super-tax shall be payable by us in respect of the income, profits or gains for the period between the end of the previous year and 28th February, 1962, by virtue of our business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]113ITR810(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. In this consolidated reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessment years involved are 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The relevant previous years ended on March 31, 1960, March 31, 1961, and March 31, 1962. The question referred is as follows : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that neither Section 154 nor Section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was applicable ' 2. The facts found and/or admitted in these proceedings are that in the original assessments of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, development rebates of various amounts were allowed. Subsequently, it was pointed out by the revenue audit that the rebate allowed was irregular and, therefore, should be withdrawn by rectification of the assessments. Thereupon, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the assessee to show cause why the alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]42STC90(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This is a reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, at the instance of Davy and United Engineering Co. Ltd., the assessee. The questions referred are as follows :(1) Whether or not transfers of goods by the applicant-company to other companies of the same consortium against payment of price constituted sales within the meaning of the Indian Sale of Goods Act and the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.(2) Whether or not sales of unserviceable goods, scraps, discarded and surplus materials were exigible to tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, in view of the incorporation of the definition of 'business' by an Ordinance promulgated in 1967 (since repealed and saved by West Bengal Act 25 of 1969), the retrospective operation of which was struck down by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shew Bhagwan Goenka v. Commercial Tax Officer [1973] 32 S.T.C. 368.2. The facts found and/or admitted are as follows : The assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal20,82CWN864
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Salil K. Roy Chowdhury J., delivered on the 20th and 21st Dec., 1973 dismissing an application for setting aside an award. It is an award of the Tribunal o Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry being Award No. 248 made on the 18th March, 1952. The petitioner before the learned Trial Judge, who is now the appellant before us, made inter alia, the following prayers :'(a) That the said purported Contract No. B/713 dated 31st May 1951 and/or the Bought Note and Sold Note relating thereto and the arbitration agreement contained therein be declared null and void and/or the validity and/or the existence and/or the effect of the said purported contract and the arbitration agreement contained therein be determined by this Hon'ble Court; (b) That the purported reference and the said pretended Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry being purported Award No. 248 dated...
Tag this Judgment!