Kolkata Court September 1981 Judgments
The India Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Collector, Central Excise an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1981
Reported in: 1981LC545D(Calcutta)
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. The petitioner India Jute Company since 9th of November, 1965 carried on and still carries on business inter alia of manufacturing blended yarn containing 60% and above cotton and the balance of staple fiber of cellulosic origin of 1.5 denier above. The petitioner's factory is situated at Serampore. The petitioner does not manufacture the staple fiber of cellulosic origin used by the petitioner in the manufacture of blended yarn and the petitioner purchases the same from the market. The staple fibre purchased by the petitioner from the market at all material times was and still is excisable under Item 18 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and at the time such articles were purchased by the petitioner they have already been charged excise duty payable under item 18 of the first schedule to the said Act.2. The petitioner has discovered that it has been paying duty under a wrong impression and belief that blended yarn of the kind manuf...
Tag this Judgment!Dunia Lal Datta Vs. Nagendra Nath Datta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal163
Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. 1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for adjudication that the decree passed in T. Suit No. 451 of 1971 by the learned 9th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta and registered on 7-2-1974 was void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff, for an order that the said registered decree be delivered up and cancelled, injunction etc. The circumstances under which the suit was instituted will appear from the short list of dates set out below. Aug. 1946 -- The defendant No. 2 Balai was inducted as a tenant by the defendant No. 1 Nagendra in respect of premises No. 50 Doctor Lane, Calcutta. Nagendra was the owner of this property.9th Spet. 1946 -- A deed of sale was executed by Nagendra in favour of Balai in respect of the premises No. 50 Doctor Lane to avoid creditors. Nagendra alleged that the deed was a benami transaction. 5th June 1971 -- T. Suit No. 451 of 1971 was instituted by Nagendra against Balai for declaration that t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Clive Mills Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: [1984]148ITR14(Cal)
Sabyasacht Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the profits or gains arising from the sale of loom hours were not chargeable to tax under the head 'Capital gains' as the assessee had not incurred any cost in terms of money in the acquisition of the loom hours '2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1961-62 for which therelevant accounting year is the financial year ending March 31, 1961. Theassessee-company, which is in liquidation, had income from property andincome from business during the year under consideration. It also sold loom hours and the ITO treated the sale proceeds of Rs. 1,18,526 as short-term capital gains. The matter went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order disposed of the matter, relying on its earlier order dated March 21, 1975. Therefore, it w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Binani Investment Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR845(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order made under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment year involved in this reference is the assessment year 1968-69 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31st December, 1967. The assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,14,980. After deducting the statutory amounts, it was left with a distributable income of Rs. 38,981. Since it was an investment company, it was obliged to declare 90 per cent. of the distributable income amounting to Rs. 35,082 as dividends to avoid application of Section 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The dividend actually distributed was only Rs. 5,012 with a shortfall of Rs. 30,070. It was asserted on behalf of the assessee before the ITO that a larger dividendcould not he declared as ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Xyz Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD852(Kol.)
1. This departmental appeal seeks to challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central I, Calcutta, on two grounds.2. The first ground is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the ITO to include dearness allowance as salary for the purpose of perquisites under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The relevant facts are that in calculating the aggregate of the expenditure and allowance to be disallowed under Section 40A(5)(c)(ii) the ITO did not include the dearness allowance payable to the concerned employees as a part of their salary. The ITO decided to exclude the dearness allowance for this purpose on the ground that the same was not being taken into account for calculation of superannuation benefits.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order of the ITO on this point. He held that for the purpose of Section 40A(5), salary is to be taken as defined in Explanation 2(d) to the said provision. As under this Explanation, dearness allowance ...
Tag this Judgment!Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR326(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. The applicant, Namdang Tea Co. Ltd., has challenged the propriety of the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji J., whereby the learned judge discharged the rule nisi issued on the application of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant is a non-resident sterling company which, at all material times, was carrying on business of growing, manufacturing and selling tea. The tea gardens and factories of the appellant were all in India. The accounts in India were recorded in rupee currency. The main accounts at the head office of the appellant in London were recorded in sterling. It is alleged that on the basis of these accounts in the head office of the appellant which was closed on 31st December, every year, that assessments of income-tax were made in India. A current account was maintained between the London head office and the Indian division in respect of the appellant's trading transactions.3. On June 6, 1966, the Govt. of India devalued the rupee ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Aujla Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kaluram Mahadeo Prosad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Cal106
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed and judgment delivered by Mrs. Justice Padma Khastgir on the 7th April, 1980. Before we refer to the judgment and points involved in the appeal, it would be necessary to refer to certain facts. On or about 1st December, 1978, there was a contract of sale, being contract No. BSA 297/-298/78 between the plaintiff, as the buyer and the defendant No. 1, the seller, which is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, the buyer. There were four defendants in this suit. The defendant No. 1 is the seller, the defendant No. 2 is the United Commercial Bank, Calcutta, which is the paying Bank. The defendant No. 3 is the Insurance Company and defendant No. 4 is the European Asian Bank, which was the banker of the defendant No. 1, the seller. As mentioned hereinbefore, the contract was for sale. The clause of the contract gives requirements as to certificates. The date of delivery, from time to time, was extended and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Narayan Keshori and ors. Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal1,86CWN146
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order passed by the Calcutta University approving the resolution of the Board of Discipline dated 10-5-79 cancelling the examination of the petitioners who appeared at the B. Lib. Science Examination held in 1978 and the letter issued by the Board of Discipline intimating the same to the Head of the Department of Library Science of Calcutta University which are annexed to the writ petition as an-nexures C and D respectively.2. The salient facts in short as appear from the averments in the petition are as follows. The petitioners appeared in the B. Lib. Sc. Examination in 1978. The said examination was held at Pischall Hall, Darbhanga Building College Street Campus, on and from Aug. 29; 1978 to Sept. 19, 1978 and Classification practice (paper II) examination was held on Sept. 15, 1978. On or about May 24. 1978, the result of the said examination was published but as regards the result of the petitioners they were not published and w...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Sekhar Sarkar Vs. Baidyanath Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal6,86CWN111
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. The petitioner herein is the applicant for pre-emption under Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act in respect of the land purchased by the opposite parties on the ground of vicinage. As the application could not befiled within four months of the date of transfer as required by the Section, he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.2. The learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Arambagh by an order dated 22-3-1980 held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act had no application in a case under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act particularly when the application is made on the ground of vicinage. So the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected.3. Mr. Abhijit Kumar Baneriee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner argues that in view of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable in the instant case. He further contends that there is nothing in the West Bengal...
Tag this Judgment!Macneill and Magor Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR521(Cal)
Sabyaschi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question, as directed by this court, has been referred to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability to pay additional bonus in the sum of Rs. 1,32,795 did not arise in 1969 and the said sum was not, therefore, allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1970-71 ?'2. In order to appreciate the question, it would be necessary to refer to certain facts. The assessment year involved is 1970-71, which covers the calendar year 1969. The ITO disallowed the assessee's claim for Rs. 1,32,795 on the ground that it was a provision for an ex gratia compensation and that the liability was neither ascertained nor quantified. There was an appeal from the said order of the ITO before the AAC. Before we mention anything about that, it may be mentioned that, as for income-tax assessment purpose, the business loss wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »