Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1982]52CompCas471(Cal)
Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, for rectification of the share register of the company in respect of 38,000 equity shares mentioned in para. 8 of the petition in favour of the petitioner and for consequential orders.2. The admitted facts are that by an order dated the 9th of February, 1976, the company, Bengal Potteries Ltd., was wound up and subsequently with the leave of the court a notification under Section 18FA dated the 15th of September, 1976, was issued read with Section 80AA of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. The industrial undertaking being the entire undertaking of the respondent-company, Bengal Potteries Ltd., was taken over by the Central Govt. without investigation under the circumstances mentioned in the notification and the Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India Ltd. was appointed the authorised person under the said notification. It follows, therefore, that under the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1981]127ITR528(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the old question, viz., what is information, is presented for our consideration in the light of the facts of this case. We were tempted to embark upon the controversy whether the decision of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution even though the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, composed of judges of a lesser number, has expressly, after consideration, doubted the view of the larger Bench. In order to appreciate the questions we may, however, refer to certain facts.2. It appears that Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961, was amended by Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1970, which received the assent of the President of India on the 14th of May, 1970 (incidentally there is a mistake of date in the order of the Tribunal where it is stated that the said Act received the assent of the President on the 4th of May, 1970 ; that mistake, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1980)17CTR(Cal)138,[1980]126ITR679(Cal)
Sabyasaciii Mukharji, J. 1. In this case while making the assessment under the I.T. Act, for the year 1959-60, the ITO disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 37,879 being wealth-tax paid by it. The assessee went up in appeal to the AAC. There were several grounds of appeal before the AAC including the one relating to the disallowance of wealth-tax paid. The assessee, however, did not press this particular ground relating to the wealth-tax and the AAC confirmed this disallowance. The assessee raised the above points before the Tribunal as an additional ground along with other grounds for this assessment year. The Tribunal observed that this ground was not pressed by the assessee before the AAC, because at that time the law was as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of Travancore Titanium Product Ltd. v. CIT : [1966]60ITR277(SC) and the law was that wealth-tax was not a permissible deduction. But later on in the decision in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1981Cal27,85CWN47
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. A common question as to whether an order for permanent alimony and maintenance passed in terms of Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and incorporated in a decree of dissolution of marriage lapses on the death of the husband/judgment debtor or not having arisen for consideration in C. R. 1529 of 1979 and F. A. 11 of 1979, we have heard them together.2. The above Civil Rule arises out of execution case No. 1 of 1977 now pending in the 5th Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore, and is directed against an order dated January 31, 1979, dismissing an objection under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1978. That objection was preferred by Smt. Aruna Basu Mallik, executrix to the estate of late Prafulla Kumar Mitra. It is not in dispute that the opposite party before us, namely, Smt. Dorothi Mitra instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 22 of 1961, against her husband...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1980)19CTR(Cal)77,[1981]130ITR351(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference, under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, the following questions have been referred to this court for answer ;'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the increase in liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 due to devaluation was not deductible in computing the assessee's business income ?2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the alternative claim of the assessee-company for development rebate under section 33 of the 'Income-tax Act, 1961, on Rs. 1,09,24,832 was not admissible under the provisions of the Act ?'2. In order to appreciate these questions, it is necessary to state certain facts. The assessee is a limited company and, as mentioned hereinbefore, the reference relates to the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1980)19CTR(Cal)85,[1981]127ITR679(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with two assessment years, namely, the assessment years 1957-58 and 1961-62 for which the corresponding accounting periods were 2012-13 and 2016-17, Dewali years, respectively. The assessee is a registered firm with four partners who are all brothers having equal shares. The original assessment for the year 1957-58 was completed on 28th October, 1957. At the time of assessment, the assessee had shown certain cash credits in the name of different hundiwallas, as they have come to be known in income-tax jargon in this country. The ITO accepted the credits as genuine while making the original assessment for the year 1957-58. On the 3rd of February, 1966, the assessee filed a disclosure petition. In the said disclosure petition, the assessee had stated, inter alia, as follows :'That your petitioner-firm and its partners as already said have earned these incomes during the period 1949 to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal249,(1980)2CompLJ146(Cal)
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. 1. This Second miscellaneous appeal stems from a proceeding under Section 47 of the Civil P. C.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the instant appeal are as follows :--Fakir Chandra Pal, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents, instituted a Title Suit being No. 200 of 1964 in the file of Munsiff, Ghatal, seeking declaration of his title in respect of the lands described in the three schedules (Ka, Kha and Ga) of the plaint. He also prayed for confirmation of possession in respect of the lands described in schedules `Ka' and 'Kha' and recovery of possession in respect of schedule 'Ga' in the plaint, which is a part of 'Ka' schedule. The suit was decreed by the trial court on June 25, 1906. Satya Sadhan Mnlliek, the defendant No. 1 in the suit and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, preferred an appeal against the same and the learned subordinate Judge, First Class Court. Midnapur, allowed the appeal and remanded the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1980CENCUS544D,1981(8)ELT37(Cal)
ORDERS.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th September, 1974 passed by Masud, J. By and under the said judgment and order Masud, J. held that pending applications filed by the respondents for assessment of Excise duty under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 shall be determined by the Excise Authorities in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the case of A.K. Roy and Anr. v. Voltas Limited reported in : 1973ECR60(SC) , that is to say on the basis of the wholesale cash price comprising manufacturing cost and manufacturing profits only. By, and under the said judgment and order Masud, J. disallowed the petitioner's claim for declaration that all assessments of Central Excise duty made by the respondents for the period 1961 till the date of the making of the application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant are null and void and refused to order reassessment of the same on the basis of the law laid down ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1981)20CTR(Cal)228,[1981]130ITR602(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In the reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as directed by this court, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions :'1. Whether the Tribunal's finding of fact bearing on the question of penalty are perverse in that they are unsupported by and/or contrary to evidence ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order under Section 271(1)(c) ?' 2. This reference relates to four years, viz., assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70. The assessee is a registered firm and is a manufacturer of machine parts, etc. The assessee also has and, at the relevant time, had income from house properties and other sources. According to the assessee, the assessee's accounts were accepted and acted upon by the revenue from year to year and the assessee further asserts that no serious challenge was ever made to their genuineness or that those were not kept regularly in the course ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1983]53CompCas597(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application by the petitioner, Benaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as ' the company (in liquidation)', under Sections 468 and 518(1)(b) and (4) of the Companies Act, 1956, for anorder against the respondent, U. P. State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as ' the Board ', to pay to the liquidators of the company (in liquidation) a sum of Rs. 68,29,636'87 together with interest thereon at the rate, the court may think fit being the amount collected or realised by the Board between 4/5th February, 1975, till 30th of April, 1979, and all further collections made by the Board during the period 1st May, 1979, till the date of the order to be made herein from the company's (in liquidation) consumers on account of arrears of charges of electricity supplied to them by the company (in liquidation) up to the midnight of 4th/5th of February, 1975, which the respondent-Board is now holding for and on behalf of the compan...
Tag this Judgment!