Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1980)19CTR(Cal)74,[1981]132ITR712(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. 1961, is at the instance of the assessee.2. The assessee filed a return on February 16, 1968, for the assessment year 1966-67, showing an income of Rs. 15,944. The ITO completed the assessment on December 31, 1970, on a total income of Rs. 68,525 which was inclusive of Rs. 38,464 added as income from undisclosed sources. The addition of Rs. 38,464 was made on the basis that the sum of Rs. 38,464 credited in the assessee's books of account as proceeds realised by the sale of goods, in fact, represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. With reference to the above addition and some other additions made in the assessment, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee and referred the matter to the IAC for further action. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC reduced the aforementioned addition of Rs. 38,464 to Rs. 31,464. The impugned order of penalty was passed by the IAC aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1981]132ITR822(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The question posed for our consideration in this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income, profits and gains of a company not includible in its total income referred to in Rule 4 of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, applied only to those amounts, which are not includible in the total income by the provisions of Chapter III of the Income-tax Act, and not to any of the deductions claimable under Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no error in the order of the Income-tax Officer in not reducing the capital computed proportionately having regard to the deductions allowed under Sections 80-I and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in that view cancelling the order of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal341,85CWN25
A.N. Sen, C.J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment to be delivered by my learned brother in this appeal. My learned brother has fully set out all the relevant facts in his judgment. In his judgment, my learned brother has also considered the arguments which were advanced from the Bar and also the various decisions which were cited in course of the arguments. In this judgment, I do not propose to reproduce the same. I am in entire agreement with the views expressed by my learned brother in his judgment.2. The only question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether Argenti Nitras I. P. which is a drug and is recognised as such in Indian Pharmacopoeia, comes within Item 55 in Part A of Sch. I to the Exports (Control) Order. The said Item No. 55 in Part A reads 'Silver salt. Silver Chemicals and compounds with more than 50% silver contents'. The goods listed in Part A are not normally allowed to be exported and they are commonly known as banned items. Item 55 was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1981Cal18
ORDERSalil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, inter alia for determination of the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement and a declaration that noarbitration agreement has been entered into between the parties and injunction restraining the respondent and his agents and servants from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings before Indo-Ger-man Chamber of Commerce on the basis of the claim contained in the letter dated the 29th of November, 1979, and for other incidental reliefs.2. The petitioner moved the application on the 22nd of April, 1980, and obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondent and his agents, servants and assigns from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings before the Indo German Chamber of Commerce on the basis of the claim contained in the letter dated the 29th of November, 1979. being annexure 'D' to the petition. Returnable date was fixed on the 16th day of April, 1930....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1981)21CTR(Cal)244,85CWN203,[1981]130ITR223(Cal)
Sabyasacht Mukharji, J.1. In this case, the assessment years involved are 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessee was the holder of an impartible estate known as the Burdwan Raj and was governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. There was a partition of the family properties, according to the assessee, between the assessee and his three sons, by a deed dated 10th April, 1962. The assessee claimed partition of the family properties before the ITO. The ITO was of the view that the assessee has been assessed as an individual in the past and there has been no HUF which could be partitioned within the meaning of Section 171(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the claim for partition was not enforceable. He was also of the view that the partition had not taken place in the true sense of the term as the assessee's mother and brother had no right to relinquish their title or interest in the impartible estate which was solely governed by the rule of primogeniture. He further found that there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1983]142ITR380(Cal)
C.K. Banerji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the facts are shortly as follows :Smt. Asrafi Devi Rajgharia, the assessee, had been the owner of premises No. 212, Bagmari Road, Calcutta, comprising of land measuring 16 bighas and 17 cottahs which was acquired under the Calcutta Improvement Trust Scheme No. VII (Manicktala). Declaration in respect of the said land under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on the 12th August, 1954, and general notice under Section 9(1) thereof was published on the 6th January, 1955. An award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on the 22nd September, 1959, whereunder Rs. 3,06,164'50 was determined to be payable as compensation. Possession of the said land was taken from the assessee on the 19th January, 1960, The assessee being dissatisfied with the said award made a reference to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal where she also claimed compensation for damage suffered due to delay in making th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1981]131ITR380(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The transaction involved in these appeals under Section 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, is the transfer of premises No. 13,Gurusaday Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the property'), comprising of 16'642 cottahs of land and a one storey structure, by M/s. Madho Properties Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor') to M/s. Shree Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the transferee') under a deed of conveyance dated the 4th July, 1974, for a stated consideration of Rs. 14,50,000.2. Earlier, M/s. Talbot & Co., Calcutta, had valued the property at about Rs. 14,22,000 and submitted a report dated the 27th September, 1973. The said valuers took into account the situation of the property, its land area, its frontage on the main road on its south abutting on an open Maidan. They also noted that the property was situated in a detached area requiring land to be left vacant in any proposed construction and that the existing structure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal374,85CWN73
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The petitioner has alleged that on the 16th August, 1959, he was married to the respondent No. 1, Devika Roy, according to the Hindu rites in Calcutta. After the marriage, two children were born. From April to November, 1969, while he lived in his quarters at Rishra, he had to leave Rishra for Calcutta in connexion with his official duties at 8 a.m. and return home at about 7.30 p.m. The co-respondent, Dr. Saroj Sen, is the Medical Officer of the Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India, where the petitioner is employed as Project Manager. Dr. Sen used to treat the members of his family from 1966 to 1969. On the morning of 6th November, 1969, all of a sudden he returned to Rishra. On that date, Dr. Sen committed adultery with his wife in that quarters. The two children were taken away by their 'Ayah' under the direction of Devika. So, he began to suspect them until to be sure about the same subsequently. Dr. Sen committed adultery with Devika from April, 1969, and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1981)21CTR(Cal)293,[1981]130ITR747(Cal)
Saryasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to this court:' I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Explanation to that section, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the department had failed to prove concealment of income in regard to the sum of Rs. 26,000 and interest amounting to Rs. 1,096 by the assessee-company ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that apparently an artificial juridical person like a limited company is incapable of conscious concealment of income and it would be well nigh impossible for the department to prove the existence of mens rea in the case of a company and, hence, the company was not liable to penalty for concealment '2. This reference relates to the assessment for the assessment year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 85CWN133,[1983]139ITR548(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. These appeals at the instance of a number of petitioners are against the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Judge discharging the rules obtained by them.2. All of them argued that the Act, being the West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1979, is ultra vires and as suit bad in law. Before dealing with the question it is convenient for us to state the provisions of the Act. We are not going to quote the whole Act, as it is, but we are only mentioning the main provisions of the Act against which the challenge was sought to be made. The preamble of the Act provides 'for the levy and collection of tax on professions, trades, callings and employments for raising additional resources for the benefit of the State and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto'. The Act was promulgated, it got the assent of the Governor on March 31, 1979, and it came into force on and from April 1, 1979.3. In so far as we are concerned in these appeals...
Tag this Judgment!