Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas611(Cal),82CWN774
Salil Kumar Dutta, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Ramendra Mohan Datta J., dated March 21, 1975 (see page 211 supra) whereby the application of the Registrar of Companies for winding up the company was dismissed.2. The respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as ' the company '), a public company, was incorporated on November 29, 1913, and the main objects for which the company was established as set forth in the memorandum of association are as follows :' 3(a) To construct, complete, equip and make ready for public traffic and to work, maintain and carry on a line of railway between the towns of Burdwan and Cutwa in the district of Burdwan in Bengal and to undertake the construction, completion and making ready for traffic of such line and to form junctions with the East Indian Railway and to pay for the plans and survey made of the railway to be constructed and the cost of providing and maintaining police for the protection thereof and to make arrangements w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]42STC209(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the orders See [1975] 36 S.T.C. 98 passed by Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J., whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions of the appellant.2. The case of the appellant was that he along with his brother Kanak Paul had been carrying on a partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Gopal Chandra Paul & Sons. It was alleged that the firm was a dealer within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and held registration certificates under both the Acts. The said partnership firm was dissolved on 17th November, 1972. The appellant intimated respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chinabazar Charge, about the dissolution of the firm by two separate letters, both dated 21st April, 1973. By the said letters, the appellant requested respondent No. 1 to cancel the registration certificates which were also surrendered along with the said letters. In spite of the dissolut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]116ITR940(Cal)
Sen, J. 1. The facts found and/or admitted in these proceedings, inter alia, are as follows :B. R. Vasa, the assessee, had been assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1947-48, the relevant previous year being the one ended on the 31st March, 1947. Subsequently, on the 29th February, 1964, it was found that in the said year the assessee had made deposits totalling Rs. 56,996 in an account with the United Bank of India at Bombay which had not been disclosed by the assessee in his return. With the approval of the CBDT, on the 29th March, 1964, a notice under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was issued and served on the assessee. Explanations given by the assessee in reassessment proceedings were rejected and the said deposits were added to his total income and brought to tax.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC, who confirmed the reassessment. The assessee preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal for the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]43STC96(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge, whereby the learned Judge discharged the rule nisi obtained by the appellant on his application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant deals in gunny bags and is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the writ petition out of which the said rule nisi arose, the appellant challenged the propriety and validity of two notices dated 7th November, 1974, and 7th December, 1974, issued by respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle, by which he proposed to reopen and reassess the sales tax payable by the appellant for the periods, namely, 4 quarters ending Chaitra Sudi 8, 2023, and 4 quarters ending Chaitra Sudi 8, 2024. The assessments for the above periods had been completed by the assessment orders dated 17th February, 1969, and 26th March, 1969, respectively of the Commercial Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]119ITR629(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J. 1. The petitioner is admittedly an assessee under the provisions of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), in respect of her share held in various companies, deposits in banks and jewelleries. For the assessment year 1968-69, the relevant valuation date being March 31, 1968, she filed her return of net wealth before the WTO concerned, being respondent No, 3, She has claimed that in her return she fully and truly disclosed all the material particulars of her net wealth chargeable to tax under the said Act. She has also claimed that along with such return, she filed a statement of net wealth as on March 31, 1968.2. By a notice under Section 16(2) of the said Act, which is to the following effect :'Section 16(2) If the Wealth-tax Officer is not so satisfied, he shall serve a notice on the assessee either to attend in person at his office on a date to be specified in the notice or to produce or cause to be produced on that date any evidence on which th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas219(Cal)
Padma Khastgir, J.1. A company formerly known as N. C. R. Corporation and since April, 1974, known as M/s. National Cash Registers Co. with limited liability incorporated in the U.S.A., having its registered office at U.S.A., carried on business in India, inter alia, at 4/D, B. B. D. Bag, East Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of this court, at Madras, New Delhi, Bombay and Ahmedabad. The said company hereinafter referred to as 'the American company' was carrying on the business of import and marketing in India of various accounting and other machines. The plaintiff, Gobind Pritamdas Malkani, Amarendra Nath Sircar, Keshab Ranjan Chakraborty, Bhabatosh Dey and many others were employed by the said American company. The plaintiff, Govind Pritamdas Malkani, was the manager of the Bombay branch.2. By an agreement in writing dated 16th of February, 1974, executed between the American company and the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the American company agreed to sell and transfer to the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1978Cal533
B.N. Maitra, J.1. Title Suits Nos. 252 of 1963 and 121 of 1964 were tried together. In the earlier Suit No. 252, the plaintiff's allegation is that the premises No. 601, Diamond Harbour Road, belonged to Debiprosad Paul and Umaprosad Paul, out of these 7 (seven) shop rooms located in that premises, the disputed shop room was let out to Biswanath Das (plaintiff) at a rental of Rs. 18/- per month payable according to English Calendar. The agreement was that the tenancy would commence from the 1st June, 1963. The defendants accepted the rent for June in advance and a receipt was granted. On the 11th June, 1963, the plaintiff took some articles to that shop. The defendants demanded premium from him. The plaintiff declined to make such payment. The police was falsely informed that he had stored his belongings in the room in question. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the disputed land under the defendants and for an injunction.2. The defendants filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]122ITR322(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessments of Ram Kumar Agarwalla & Bros. (P.) Ltd., Calcutta, in the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. In each of the said years, the assessee failed to file any return of income within the time prescribed in Section 22(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Notice under Section 22(2) of the Act directing the assessee to file a return had not been issued to the assessee for any of the said years. Later, pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, issued on the 17th March, 1966, the assessee filed returns for each of the said years on the 11th April, 1966. The ITO completed the assessments thereon and levied interest under Clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals to the AAC who upheld the decision of the ITO and confirmed the levy of interest. The said appeals were dismissed by a common order.3. The assessee went up in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]120ITR872(Cal)
Sen, J.1. This reference under the I.T. Act, 1961, relates to the assessments of M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. in assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the previous years ending on the 31st March of 1960 and 1961. The assessee had purchased a ship named APJ Ambar in the assessment year 1960-61 and another ship named APJ Usha in the assessment year 1961-62. In the assessments for the said assessment years, the assessee had claimed and had been allowed development rebate in respect of the said two ships amounting, respectively, to Rs. 5,10,830 and Rs. 5,90,653.2. The assessee preferred appeals from the said assessments. The main contention in the appeals was that the ITO had wrongly added to the total income of the assessee various amounts shown as hundi loans as income from undisclosed sources. An additional ground, raised at the hearing of the appeal, was that the amount shown in the account of the assessee as estimated value of subsidies, in fact, had not been received by the assessee ...
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!