Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-18-1976
Reported in : [1978]112ITR111(Cal)
..... section 269 of the income-tax act which was invoked by the said authority had no application. it was pointed out that the pre-requisite condition for assumption of jurisdiction by the said authorities were not satisfied in this case.4. it was further pointed out to the said authority that the rights and obligations of the previous agreement dated 30th december, 1947, entered into between the said hindusthan building society ltd. and the said hindusthan co-operative insurance society ltd. devolved on the life insurance corporation of india upon nationalisation of the insurance business in terms of the said life insurance act, 1956 ..... asst. government of indiacommissioner of office of the......income-tax, acquisition dated 18-6-73range-ii, calcutta. 2. whereas, i, m. n. tiwary, being the competent authority under section 269b of the income-tax act, 1961 (43 of 1961), have reason to believe that the immovable property, having a fair market value exceeding rs. 25,000 and bearing no. 29/na (e.p. & w.p ..... acquisition of the aforesaid property in terms of chapter xxa of the income-tax act, 1961 (43 of 1961), have been recorded by me;now, therefore, in pursuance of section 269c, i hereby initiate proceedings for the acquisition of the aforesaid property by the issue of thisnotice under sub-section (1) of section 269d of the income-tax act, 1961 (43 of 1961), to the following persons, namely-(i) m/s. life insurance corporation of india, (ii) m/s. hindusthan building society ltd. (confirming .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-21-1976
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ415Cal
R.M. Dutta, J.1. The Rule nisi herein was directed against the Union of India and the different authorities of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, (hereinafter called the laid Corporation), calling upon them to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus and a writ in the nature of prohibition should not be issued against them, commanding the said respondents and each of them to act according to law, by directing the respondents to act is accordance with a settlement, dated January 24, 1974 read with an administrative instruction, dated March 29, 1974; by re-calling, rescinding and/or canceling the impugned circulars, dated September 26, 1975, February 7, 1976 and March 11, 1976, being anuexures to the petition j by not acting in any manner whatsoever on the basis of the said impugned circulars; and further, by not refusing to pay the annual cash bonus to the Class III and Class IV employees of the respondent No. 2, the employees of the said Corporation including the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-29-1976
Reported in : [1977]107ITR909(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application I am concerned with the assessment made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year1972-73. The petitioner is a public limited company. For the aforesaid assessment year the petitioner claimed relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in view of the contentions urged in this application it is necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the assessment order dealing with this question. The said assessment order stated, inter alia, as follows: ' (vi) Relief Under Section 80J. The assessee claimed Rs. 49,69,033 under Section 80J for the year on the basis of average capital. For reasons discussed in the preceding year, the assessee's claim is disallowed. The claim is confined to Rs. 21,85,515 as under: Rs.Rs. 21,85,5151,49,56,675(a)Assets entitled to depreciation : Written down value of fixed assets as on 30-9-1970 as per last asstt. order3,73,26,323 (b)Assets not entitled to depreciation : Land as per balance-shee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-08-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Cal246,81CWN453
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against order dated 20-7-1972 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 24-Parganas (North) as the Co-operative Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. It appears that there were certain disputes between the petitioner and others and the co-operative bank and an award was passed by a Board of Arbitrators in dispute case No. 342 of 1969-70 in respect of the said dispute. The award was made on 11-12-1971 and was communicated to the petitioner on 21-12-1971. The appeal petition against the award was filed on 16-2-1972. The appellate authority, the Co-operative Tribunal, was of the opinion that under Section 134 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940 read with the Fourth Schedule thereof an appeal was to be filed within a month from the date of communication of the award to the person aggrieved. As this appeal was filed out of time beyond one month from date of communication, it was bar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-09-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Cal258,81CWN459,[1977(34)FLR278]
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This matter has been referred to a larger Bench by A. N. Sen, J. on the 13th August, 1975, under Chapter V Rule 2, of the Original Side Rules. The petitioner has its registered office at No. 16, Strand Road in Calcutta within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has a jute factory and a cotton factory at Serampore in the district of Hooghly, The business of the petitioner is manufacture and sale of jute and cotton textile goods. The petitioner's Calcutta office is stated to be a commercial establishment where the petitioner employs clerical and other staff.2. The petitioner has made this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect to certain directions or orders contained in letters mentioned in the petition Or otherwise applying Or seeking to apply the provisions of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-22-1976
Reported in : (1977)IILLJ285Cal
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. An interesting question of some importance concerning the rights and obligations of the Management and the Award Staff of a nationalized Bank arises for consideration in this writ petition.2. Six employees of Bank of India, a nationalized Bank, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), and Bank of India Employees' Union, the recognized union of the Bank, have presented this writ petition in which the validity of two orders or notices passed by the Management of the Bank have been questioned. The first order or notice dated 25.6.1975 is contained in Annexure ('A') to the petition and is in the following terms:NOTICEDeduction of pro rata wages for mass demonstration.Certain members of award staff of Calcutta Branch and Regional Offices held mass demonstrations on the following days leaving their respective desks: Date Time3.6.1975 2-30 p.m. to 4.30 a.m. 2 hours4.6.1975 11-10 a.m. to 11-35 a.m. 25 minutes6.6.1975 2-30 p.m. to 3-00 p.m. 30 minutes17.6.1975 2-45 p.m. t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-08-1976
Reported in : AIR1976Cal427,(1976)2CompLJ1(Cal),80CWN766
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. On an application under Article 226 of the Constitution Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen delivered judgment on the 1st March, 1973. The appellants before Us applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 20th March, 1973. Due to the delay in applying for certified, copy they lost 19 days.2. The certified copy was ready for delivery on the 27th April, 1973, at 4.80 p. m. The appellants took delivery of the certified copy on April 30, 1973. The appeal was filed on June 11, 1973. The Stamp Reporter did not accept the Memorandum of Appeal on the ground that it was presented 33 days after the expiry of the period of limitation. The appellants thereafter presented an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the 13th June, 1973, whereupon Civil Rule No. 2024 (M) of 1973 was issued. The Rule has now come up for hearing.3. Mr. Sankardas Banerjee appearing for the appellants contends that the appellants lost 19 days between the 1st March, 1973 and the 20th Marc...
Tag this Judgment!