Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-25-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Cal349,[1971]41CompCas477(Cal),[1971]80ITR108(Cal)
ORDERA.N. Sen, J.1. This application raises a question of law of some importance. The question is whether the Income-tax Authorities are competent to commence or continue an assessment proceeding against a company in liquidation without obtaining leave of Court.2. By an order made by this Court on the 16th of June, 1961, the company went into liquidation and the Official Liquidator was appointed Liquidator of the company. The company is now in the process of being wound up by this Court. The Official Liquidator of the company has been served with several notices of assessment in respect of the company by the Income-tax Authorities. He has been served with a notice under Section 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment year 1964-65 and he has also received notices under Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment years 1965-68, 1966-67 and 1967-68. All these notices are in respect of periods subsequent to the date of the winding up order. These notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-29-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Cal193
K.L. Roy, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff firm against the Life Insurance Corporation of India for arrears of remuneration or in the alternative for damages in respect of an agreement Between the plaintiff firm and Aryya Insurance Company Limited. The case for the plaintiff is that on or about the 1st June. 1954 Aryya Insurance Company Limited appointed the plaintiff firm as its special representative for the purpose of introducing persons willing to act as insurance agents of the company. It was further agreed that on the acceptance by the company and appointment of any such persons as its agents the plaintiff guaranteed that insurance business worth at least Rupees five lacs annually would be procured by such agents yielding a premium collection of about Rs. 20,000/-, and in consideration thereof the plaintiff firm would be entitled to an allowance of Rs. 200/- per month and in addition a flat rate of commission of 65 per cent on the first year's premium collection including age...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-01-1969
Reported in : [1971]80ITR408(Cal)
..... with reference to declaration of dividends or bonus shares in an earlier year.20. the relevant provisions of paragraph d of part ii of the first schedule to the finance act, 1959, is as follows :'in the case of the life insurance corporation of india established under the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (xxxi of 1956),-- rate of super-tax on the whole of its profits and gains from life insurance business 11% in the case of every other company,-- rate of super-tax on the whole of the total income 50% provided that,-- (i) a rebate at the ..... to the standing provisions of the act but the payability and the quantification of the tax depend on the passing and the application of the annual finance act, thus, income is chargeable to tax independent of the passing of the finance act but until the finance act is passed no tax can be actually levied.'15. the close connection between the income-tax act and finance act is further evident from the provisions of section 294 of the income-tax act of 1961 corresponding to section 67b of the act of 1922. section 294 runs thus :' ..... refer to a decision of the madras high court in papanasam mills co. (private) ltd., v. commissioner of income-tax, [1961] 43 i.t.r. 53 (mad.). the madras high court has said the provisions, of the second proviso to paragraph d of part ii of the first schedule to the finance act, 1956, which provide that the standard rebate in super-tax permissibe to a company under the first proviso to that paragraph shall be reduced .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-20-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Cal200,74CWN43
Bijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. By this suit raised on January 28, 1958, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (shortened into LIC hereafter, as far as possible), prays for a decree under Order 34, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) in form No. 5-A in appendix D in the first schedule thereto, on the foot of two mortgages, the details whereof are set out below: 1.Mortgage-deed bearing date November 29, 1946 exhibit A: principal sum-Rs. 29,000.002.Deed of further charge bearing date January 19, 1949, exhibit B: principal sum-Rs. 5,000.00 3.Annual interest at 7% a compound up to Janu-ary 27, 1958, minus cre- dit of sums received towards interest-Rs. 20,247.714.Total-Rs. 50,247.712. The mortgagor is the sole defendant to this suit, Smt. Nandorani Dassi qua trustee to the estate of late Modhoo Sooden Sain, her father-in-law. The property mortgaged is the divided 4/21st share in the then 116 Cotton Street, now numbered as '114/1B', and admeasuring 1 cottah 14 chittacks and 3 square fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-01-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Cal15,73CWN676
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application for appropriate Writs and Orders directing the Union of India (respondent No. 1) not to give effect to the Metal Corporation of India (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1966, and for orders striking down, cancelling and declaring void the said Act and also for orders prohibiting the Union of India from enforcing and/or giving effect to the Metal Corporation of India (Acquisition of Undertaking) Ordinance, 1965. There is also a prayer for an injunction restraining the Union of India from selling, charging and dealing with the petitioner's undertaking and also the petitioner's properties both movable and immovable including lead and zinc ore and lead and zinc metals and silver smelter of the petitioner.2. In 1944 the petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the company) was Incorporated as a public company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The company initially commenced its business in 1944 with a share capital of Rs. 35 lacs. The auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-23-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Cal542,[1970]77ITR668(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. On the 1st May, 1955, one Probodh Chandra Ray executed a Deed of Trust in which he was referred to as a settlor. There were two trustees under this Deed viz., Usharanjan Ghosh and Sunil Hoy, the only son of the settlor, The subject-mutter of the trust was premises No. 38, Southern Avenue, Calcutta, where the settlor used to reside. The Trustees were directed to pay the rates and taxes and out of the balance of the income of the property they were to pay in any proportion whatsoever to Sm. Jyotirmoyee Ray, the settlor's wife, Sunil Roy, the settlor's son, Uma Mitra, the settlor's daughter, any children of Sunil Roy and any children of Uma Mitra by her existing marriage. None of these beneficiaries had any power of anticipation. At the end of a period of ten years, the trustees were to transfer the property to Sunil Roy or to any major child of Sunil Roy or Uma Mitra or to Uma Mitra's childr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-20-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Cal292,73CWN877
..... defendant, sm. nandarani dassi, their mother and necessarily the widow of moti lall saine, in favour of india provident co., ltd., are void.2. the life insurance corporation of india (for short, lic hereafter) is the statutory successor in interest of india provident co., ltd. this is why licfigures in this litigation, as the second defendant.3 ..... appears to be plain enough, free from any doubt or difficulty, resting as it does on the clear language used in section 6. sub-section (1) of the limitation act 9 of 1908. still mr. sinha has been good enough to cite two authorities: gangadhar sarkar v ..... company sanctions the loan. such are the facts elicited partly on cross-examination of this witness and partly in answer to court (qq. 274-301 and 315). the application for loan is rested on the allegation, as maiumdar says, that the house is falling down. and he inspects the house to check it: whether or no it is really ..... , the author thereof and of the trust-deed being one and the same person modhoo sooden who takes the precaution of having the consent and signatures of all concerned.43. i have also been referred to the law summarised in halsbury's laws of england. mr. sinha cites article 1684 at page ..... given away in adoption, and, therefore, not entitled to inherit, though nothing like it is in the pleadings, and nagubal animal v. b. shama rao, : [1956]1scr451 , where both parties go to trial with full knowledge that the sale being hit by lis pendens is in fact in issue, though no specific .....
Tag this Judgment!