Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1973]88ITR257(Cal)
Masud, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question has been referred to this court:' Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal or on record and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the new production units added to the existing production units of the assessee at Belur, Alupuram and Muri in respect of buildings, plants and machineries and directing exemption to be granted under the aforesaid section accordingly '2. The relevant assessment year is 1960-61, the corresponding previous year being the calendar year ended on December 31, 1959. The assessee-company is a manufacturer of aluminium ingots from ores. In the earlier years it had four manufacturing centres at Belur, Kalwa, Alupuram, and Hirakud. In the present accounting year one more was added at Muri and also there were additional extensions to the existing factories...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal210
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Lort-Williams J., delivered on 29th May 1936, wherein he gave judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 4000 and costs and made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to reject a boiler with accessaries. The plaintiff, the present respondent, carries on business as an ink and sealing-wax maker under the name of the Bengal Industrial Company at Cossipore, a few miles out of Calcutta. The defendant, a German gentleman, for some years had carried on business in Calcutta as a manufacturer's agent and an import-merchant dealing mainly in papers, stationery and machinery for making paper. The parties for some years previous to 1932 had business dealings with each other. In 1932, the plaintiff wished to start the manufacture of carbon paper and with that object in view, he consulted the defendant from time to time, and the defendant assisted him with advice, and also procured same formulae for the preparation of carbon-paper. In 1932, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1991]188ITR717(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of the Income-tax Act and Rules and the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the assessee was entitled to triple shift depreciation allowance on its plant and machinery ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company is entitled to depreciation at 10 per cent. in respect of its overhead cables and wires 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of supply of electrical energy to the consumers of Hooghly, Chinsurahand Bansberia. The assessee-company purchased high voltage electrical energy from the West Bengal State Electricity Board and distributed the same by reducing the voltage and transmitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1968Cal266,1968CriLJ736
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute. The present revisionsal application is for quashing, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, a criminal case being C. R. Case No. 638 of 1966, pending in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate at Port Blair. Andaman and Nicobar Islands under Section 500 I. P C.2. The facts leading on to the present revisional application may be put in a short compass. On the 14th May 1965 in the issue of the 'Darpan' a Bengali weekly published In Calcutta, an editorial article was published containing an alleged defamatory imputation against the complainant firm, viz., R. Akoji Jadwet and Company This weekly used to be printed at a press owned by a Limited company, viz., the Metropolitan Printing and Publishing House(P) Ltd. and at the relevant time, the present petitioner, Sunilakhya Chowdhury, was one of the Directors of the Company. The accused petitioner was neither the maker, that is the author nor the printer nor the publisher ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal585
K.C. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, should be allowed to raise an issue as regards relief under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act though the suit as framed was for recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a contract and on an allegation of failure of consideration for the contract. It appears that the plaintiff being in need of a Lancashire Boiler registered its requirement with the Department of Government which had been helping parties in India to obtain such boilers from abroad. By a letter dated 31st of January 1946 addressed to the Assistant Coal Commissioner of the Department of Industries and Supplies. Government of India, the plaintiff requested allocation of 2 Lancashire Boilers including one 'by John Thompson with a working pressure of 150 lbs. per sq. inch complete with fittings, mountings and firebars'. On 19th February 1946 the Assistant Coal Commissioner wrote that one second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1971]80ITR428(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, C.J.1. This income-tax reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, refers the three following questions for determination by the court. The questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in holding that the steel foundry division was an industrial undertaking to which Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,applied?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the jute mill division set up by the assessee-company was an industrial undertaking to which Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applied?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for deduction of wealth-tax paid during the accounting year was admissible in computing the assessee's profits from its business ?' 2. We can straightaway dispose of the third question as we find it isalready covered by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN297
D.K. Seth, J. The preliminary objection : Maintainability of the appeal:1. Mr. Santanu Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the respondent, had taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. According to him, the decree was passed on 20th December, 2001. Against the said decree, a review application was preferred on 3rd/4th January, 2002. This review was partly allowed by an order dated 15th July, 2002. Therefore, when the appeal was preferred on 11th September, 2002 against the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2001, there was no judgment and decree, which stood modified by reason of the order dated 15th July, 2002, being the decree against which the appeal could have been preferred. The subsequent dismissal of the review application or rejection thereof on account of not being pressed by the applicant would not alter the situation and would still affect the maintainability of the appeal. In support of his contention. Mr. Mukherjee had relied upon a decision i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER WP No.1268 of 2015 CHANDRAMALLIKA SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. -VERSUSTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.For the Petitioners : Mr.Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Senior Advocate, Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate, Ms.Swati Bhattacharyya, Advocate, Mr.Aditya Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ankit Shroff, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Ld. Advocate General, Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Advocate, Mr.Paritosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Heard on : Judgment on : 08.01.2016, 08.04.2016, 25.07.2016, 10.08.2016, 15.01.2016, 18.03.2016, 01.04.2016, 06.05.2016, 24.06.2016, 20.07.2016, 27.07.2016, 03.08.2016, 08.08.2016, 17.08.2016. 05/10/2016. Biswanath Somadder, J.: The writ petitioner no.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and the writ petitioner no.2 is its Director. The petitioners have approached this Court praying, inter alia, for the following principal reliefs: a) A writ of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1965Cal562,68CWN333
D. Basu, J.1. N.K. Sen, J., sitting singly, referred this Second Appeal to the Division Bench for disposal since, in his Lordship's opinion, there was a conflict of authorities upon the only question of law which called for his determination in this appeal.2. The second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents, who are minors, for a declaration that the ex parte decree for rent obtained by the appellants against them and their co-sharers, in R. S. No. 2006 of 1944, was not binding upon the respondents inasmuch as the respondents were, in that suit, impleaded as represented not by their mother who was their natural guardian, but by their brother, Gobinda alias Gobardhan, who was defendant No. 12 in the suit. It is now established by the findings of the Courts below that there was no adverse interest of defendant No. 12 against the minor defendants, though he did not contest the suit and also that the decree was not tainted by any fraud on the part of the appellants or of d...
Tag this Judgment!