Kolkata Court June 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Marketing and Manufacturing Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1982
Reported in: [1987]165ITR566(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 40(c)(iii)/40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cash payments made by the assessee to its employees to reimburse them for the expenses incurred by way of house rent, medical expenses and salaries of gardeners and watch and ward employees in the Relevant previous years did not result in the provision of any benefit, amenity or perquisite and should not, therefore, be taken into account in computing the disallowances to be made under the said Section 40(c)(iii)/40(a)(v) 'In view of the facts found by the Tribunal and in view of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. : [1979]119ITR431(Cal) , principles of which decision hav...
Smt. Sudha Mukherjee Vs. Sankar Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal407,86CWN841
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This appeal from an appellate decree has been referred to us by a learned single Judge of this court as he was unable to share the view expressed by another learned single Judge in the case of Haripada Das v. Sristidhar Chakraborty, : AIR1979Cal221 . The present appeal arises out of a suit for eviction which was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed on an appeal by the tenant defendant. The plaintiff is the appellant now before us.2. The plaintiff purchased the suit premises on Dec. 2, 1975. At the time of such purchase the tenant defendant was in occupation of the suit premises as a pre-existing tenant. By a notice dated May 22, 197T, the plaintiff determined the tenancy in favour of the tenant defendant with the expiry of June 1977 and such a notice being a combined notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properly Act and Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction, being Title Suit No. 560 ...
Prof. A.K. Sanyal Vs. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Basistha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal412
ORDERArun Kumar Janah, J.1. In this application the petitioner is challenging an order dated December 23, 1960 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 246 of 1980 by the District Judge, Burdwan. By the said order the learned District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 1 against an order dated Dec, 22, 1980 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No. 313 of 1980 refusing to grant an ad interim injunction as prayed for by the opposite party No. 1, The said suit was filed by the opposite party No. 1 for certain declarations and also for an injunction restraining the governing body of the Burdwan Raj College from giving effect to its resolution dated Dec. 22, 1980 terminating the services of the opposite party No. 1 as Principal of the said College. The prayer for ad interim injunction was disallowed by the trial court and the trial court directed notices to be issued to the defendants and fixed the hearing of the injunction after one week. Agains...
Administrator, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and ors. Vs. D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal203
M.M. Dutt, J . 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal and three others against the judgment of B. C. Ray, J. dated Jan. 11, 1982, whereby the learned Judge made absolute the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, are the members of the Managing Committee of Udayan Institution for girls, situate at 16, Gomes Lane, Calcutta. It is the case of the respondents that the said school was founded by respondent 4, Shri Prabati Charan Sen Gupta. The school was recognised as a Class X school by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, hereinafter referred to as the Board, in the year 1965. The recognition was extended from time to time. After the special constitution of the Managing Committee of the school was approved by the Board, the Managing Committee of the school was constituted on July 2, 1967 with the respondents as the members thereof. After the Management ...
Kantilal Somehand Shah and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central E ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1982
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC41,1982(10)ELT902(Cal)
ORDERManasnath Roy, J.1. The petitioners have claimed to be partners of the registered partnership firm M/s. Kantilal Chandulal and Company (hereinafter referred to as the said firm) which had and has the official place of business at 208, Jamunalal Bazaz Street, Calcutta-7. The petitioners have stated to be carrying on business as dealers in diamonds and other precious stones. It was their case that in course of such business, they were required to buy diamonds and jewellery from different parts of India and sell them to their customers at Calcutta. It was also stated by the petitioners that purchases made from the parties, were and are duly entered into the books of accounts of the said Firm and apart from purchase and sale of the materials as mentioned above, the petitioners used to receive diamonds and jewellery from various places, for the purpose of repairing and/or sale on commission basis. It has also been categorically stated by the petitioners that the parties, from whom they...
Pramod Kumar Mittal Vs. Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas772(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal arises out of the orders passed and judgments delivered in several matters on August 21, 1981. The points involved are interesting and rather novel but these are not many. An order for sale of certain assets of Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. has given rise to this appeal. Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as ' the said company ', is controlled by the Mittal family. Sri B. C. Mittal was the grandfather of the present applicant/appellant. Sri B. C. Mittal had five sons, namely, Mohanlal Mittal, I. S. Mittal, D. L. Mittal, C. L. Mittal and R. K. Mittal. The wife of Sree B. C. Mittal had died some time back. Different members of the Mittal family held substantial blocks of shares in the said company. M. L. Mittal and his sons and daughters hold substantial shares but altogether they are in minority. On or about May 13, 1977, M. L. Mittal had made an application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, being Company Pet...
Purna Investment Ltd. Vs. Bank of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas737(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In the other appeal, which was filed by Purna Investment Co. Ltd., in which it was not a party to the suit or to the Section 397-application, but was only a shareholder in the company concerned, the learned trial judge had not given them leave to intervene in the suit. It may incidentally be mentioned that Puma Investment Co. Ltd. is a company in which Mohonlal Mittal and his group are closely associated and they have the controlling interest. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial judge, this appeal has been filed before this court praying, inter alia, for leave to intervene and oppose the terms of settlement. Various questions have arisen on this aspect, but the main question is, whether a shareholder, as such, has such interest in a company which entitles him to intervene in respect of a suit pending against the company in respect of some of its assets. It is well settled that a shareholder has certain interest. It has been said very clearl...
Royal Calcutta Turf Club Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Cal)208,[1983]144ITR709(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, poses before us the following question ;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(27) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the losses on account of breeding of horses and pigs amounting to Rs. 74,065 and Rs. 19,918 respectively are not admissible deductions in computing the total income ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1965-66. The assessee, M/s. Royal Calcutta Turf Club, claimed a loss of Rs. 74,065 in Broodmares Account and Rs. 19,918 in Pig Account. The ITO, however, did not allow these losses because according to him the incomes from these two heads were exempt under Section 10(27) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It may be instructive to refer to the fact how the ITO had dealt with this aspect in the assessment order. In the assessment year dealing with the computation of business he has added certa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›