Kolkata Court March 1982 Judgments
Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and ors. Vs. Sachindra Nath Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal267,86CWN635
Banerjee, J.1. This revisional application was heard as contested application in presence of both the parties. The point involved in this revisional application is whether in adjudicating an application under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act the Court is to take cognizance of arrears which are time barred or not, on the point there was an earlier Division Bench decision reported in (1961) 65 Cal WN 1093 (Raghu Nath Singh v. Patel & Co.). In a case reported in : [1978]2SCR249 (Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ramchandra) it was held by the Supreme Court that while considering a provision of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let-ling, Rent and Eviction) Act, the Supreme Court held that the words 'entire amount due' as contained in Section 20 (4) of the Act included rent which has become time barred. Following the said decision the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in : AIR1980Cal114 (Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Nath Dut...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central-ii) Vs. Oil India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Cal)85,[1983]143ITR848(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The assessee is a company and the relevant assessment years are 1968-69 and 1969-70, corresponding accounting period being the calendar years ended on 31st December, 1967, and 31st December, 1968, respectively. The following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for opinion of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,35,359 and Rs. 3,30,965, being the additional expenses incurred by the assessee in the payment of its loan to the Bank of Scotland due to the devaluation of the Indian rupee, was an expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out by the assessee for the purpose of its business and as such was an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the su...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Schlumberger Seaco Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR540(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 and having regard in particular to the nature of the business carried on by the assesses and on a correct interpretation of the agreement dated 15thDecember, 1938, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sura claimed as ' research and engineering expenses' was an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee's business and was accordingly allowable in computing the profits of the said business?'2. The assessee is a non-resident company and carries on the business of rendering technical services to oil industries engaged in prospecting and searching oil wells. The assessment years are 1964-65 to 1969-70 and the relevant accounting years are the 12 months period ending on 31st March, 1963, and 30th April, 1964, respectively, for the first t...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Press Exchange Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-i
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Cal)99,[1982]138ITR594(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. As directed by this court, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1969-70, the following questions have been referred to this court:I.T. Ref. No. 493 of 1975: ' 1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could hold that Sri R.S. Goenka was given commission not on the basis that he rendered service to the assessee but because he happened to be the son of Sri A.L. Goenka, an influential executive of certain companies ? 2. Whether, the said finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence on material and on failure to consider the relevant material on record and is perverse ? 3. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the evidence produced by the assessee was not contemporary and was obtained or given with a motive ' I.T. Ref. No. 494 of 1975 : '1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could hold ...
Tag this Judgment!The State and Etc. Vs. Shyamal Kr. Dev and ors. Etc.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ40
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. G.R. Case No. 1535 of 1978 was registered in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. and 25/27 of the Arms Act and under Section 6(3) of the Indian Explosives Act. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. The learned Judge framed charge under Section 395/402 and also under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. The plea of the accused was taken. It appeared to the learned Judge subsequently that commitment of this case to the Court of Session was without jurisdiction in so far as H involves the offence punishable under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and the order of the Court in relation to the framing of charges under those Sections of the Arms Act against accused Shyamal Dev and his taking of plea thereunder was also without jurisdiction. The learned Judge on ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Bajpaie (Huf) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: (1984)7ITD913(Kol.)
1. Through these appeals the assessee has challenged the combined order of the Commissioner passed in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 setting aside the assessment orders passed by the WTO in respect of these years and directing him to frame them afresh in accordance with the facts of the case and the law after giving due opportunity to the assessee for representing his case.2. The facts bearing on the controversy may be noted. The assessee is a HUF. Its valuation dates for the aforesaid two years are 31-3-1973 and 31-3-1974, respectively. 'The family's wealth consists, inter alia, of several houses two of which are situated at Gurusaday Road bearing Nos.1A and 1B, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta. The WTO referred to the Valuation Officer the valuation of the properties Nos. 1A and IB, Gurusaday Road, vide his letter dated 29-7-1978 in terms of Section 16A of the Act. The WTO requested the Va...
Tag this Judgment!Nakul Chandra Dutta Vs. Ajit Kumar Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal564,1982(2)CHN54,86CWN866
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner/ decree-holder and is directed against an appellate Order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 62 of 1979 reversing the order of the trial Court it Misc. Case No. 48 of 1976 arising out of in application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil P.C. The application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code was filed by the opposite party No. 1 on 22-9-1976 for setting aside a sale held on 1-7-1968.2. The facts leading to the filing of the application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil P.C. may be briefly stated thus.3. One Gopal Chandra Chakraborty was the owner of 3 1/2 cottahs of land with a three storeyed building standing thereon, being premises No. 372/5, Russa Road South, subsequently renumbered as 3, Deshpran Sashmal Road, Gopal Chandra obtained a loan of Rs. 30,000/- from Metropolitan Insurance Company Limited. The decree-holder Nakul Chandra Dutta instituted Suit No. 459 of 1952 against opposite party No. 3 Panchanan ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sm. Ranu Sengupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal420,86CWN598
ORDERG.N. Ray, J. 1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition are Midwives working in the Howrah Municipality. An order of transfer of the petitioners to different wards of the Howrah Municipality was passed by the President of the Howrah Municipality on June 3, 1980 and in the instant writ petition, the legality and validity of the said order of transfer has been challenged by the petitioners on the allegation that the constitution of a committee to administer the affairs of the Howrah Municipality under Section 56A of the Bengal Municipal Act was illegal and void and as such the members of the said illegal committee had no jurisdiction to assume their offices and discharge their duties and functions as members of the said committee. Consequently, the order of transfer passed by the President of the said Committee was illegal and void. It appears that the Howrah Municipality was governed under the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. A new Act, namely, Howrah Municipal Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Nath Chakraborty Vs. Smt. Sarama Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ44
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. Let this matter be treated as on day's list.2. This Rule arises on an application under Section 401 of the Cr. P.C., and is directed against order dated 8th Dec., 1980 passed by Shri A. B. Chakraborty, Executive Magistrate, Alipore, in Miscellaneous Case No. 354 of 1979 being a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code. By the said order, the case was fixed as the learned Magistrate found that 180 days expired since the date of filing of show cause. The petitioner filed an application under Section 107 of the Code before the Executive Magistrate. The learned Magistrate on 23-11-79 drew up a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code against the opposite parties and directed them to appear before him on 19-1-80 and to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rupees 1000/- with two sureties, each of the like amount to keep peace for one year. The said proceeding was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 354 of 1979. On 19-1-80 the opposite parties Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Chandulal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Cal)39,[1982]136ITR889(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The assessee in this case is a registered firm carrying on business as dealer in precious stones and also as a middleman between sellers and buyers of precious stones. For the assessment year 1967-68, corresponding to the previous year being diwali 2022 (October 25, 1965, to November 12, 1966), the assessee filed a return on August 8, 1967, showing a total income of Rs. 22,120. The ITO received information from the Customs Officers of Preventive and Intelligence Unit, West Bengal, Calcutta, that at a search conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 2nd and 3rd August, 1966, diamonds, pearls and precious stones valued at Rs. 2,21,487 had been seized. When called upon to explain the source of these precious stones the assessee claimed that the seized goods were covered by the opening stock and purchases to the extent of Rs. 54,362 and that the remaining goods to the extent of Rs. 1,67,125 belonged to sixteen persons from whom they had been received on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »