SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Cal) 92

BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK
SATYENDRA CHUNDER GHOSE – Appellant
Versus
WEALTH-TAX OFFICER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, APARNA DUTTA, P.N.MITTER, SANJOY BHATTACHARYA

BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK, J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for an appropriate writ directed against letters dated 29th March, 1976, being" annex. "g" to the petition, and 31st August, 1976, being annex. "j", to the petition, issued by respondent No. 2, i. e. , the Assistant Valuation Officer, and the purported reference alleged to have been made by respondent No. 4, i. e. , the WTO, " K " Ward, for determining the fair market value of the property at 16/2, Raja Santosh Road, Calcutta.

( 2 ) THE facts of this case so far as they are relevant for the purpose of determination of the case herein are as follows : according to the petitioner, he constructed a house on a portion of 16/1, Raja Santosh Road, which has been numbered as 16/2, Raja Santosh Road (hereinafter referred to as the " said house property "), in the year 1961-62, at a cost of Rs. 1,48,706. In the assessment year 1963-64, the WTO, District III (4), " E " Ward, Calcutta, accepted the said cost of construction. The petitioner states that immediately on completion of the said building, i. e. , from 1st December, 1962, the said house property was let out on















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top