Kolkata Court July 1982 Judgments
Shaw Wallace Gelatines Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD177(Kol.)
1. The assessee is a limited company which manufactures pharmaceutical and industrial gelatine. The assessee during the year under appeal paid bonus to its employees at 8.33 per cent. In addition, it paid Rs. 74,206 at 8.17 per cent. The additional payment of Rs. 74,206 was not allowed by the ITO on the ground that similar amount was disallowed in the previous year and, moreover, the same was not allowable according to the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He, therefore, disallowed Rs. 74,206.2. The assessee came in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the disallowance made by the ITO for the assessment year 1975-76 was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that provisions of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act came into force after 25-9-1975 and, therefore, that provision was not applicable for the assessment year 1975-76. However, he found that according to the provisions of Section 36(1)(ii), deduction on the account of bonus sha...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chandra Mukherjee Etc., Etc. Vs. National Textile Corporation a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ244Cal
G.N. Ray, J.1. These three Rules are directed against orders passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Ltd. terminating the services of the petitioners. As some common questions of law and fact are involved in all these Rules, for the purpose of deciding the question of maintainability of the writ petitions at the instance of the respective petitioners, the above three Rules have been taken up for hearing analogously and if the writ petitions are held maintainable the Rules may be heard separately for assessment of the respective cases of the petitioners on merits. It is contended by the petitioners in all these Rules that such terminations were made arbitrarily, capriciously and without giving the petitioners any opportunity of being heard and without drawing any disciplinary proceeding against the respective petitioners. The petitioners contend that the petitioners are permanent employees and as such their servic...
Tag this Judgment!Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)4ITD212(Kol.)
1. Both these appeals are in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, whereas ST Appeal No. 27 (Cal.) of 1981 is by the assessee and ST Appeal No. 28 (Cal.) of 1981 is by the revenue.2. The only dispute in the assessee's appeal pertains to the computation of capital for the purpose of determining the chargeable profits.3. The assessee is a shipping company having its head office in Sweden.The part of its income is assessable in India in terms of Section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the course of the assessment proceedings to surtax question arose as to how the capital of the company for the purpose of the Surtax Act should be computed. The company worked out the capital for purposes of the Surtax Act by taking Indian capital to world capital in the same ratio as Indian income to the world income. Profit as per world profit and loss account was worked out by the assessee at Rs. 83,37,289. Indian income as per income-tax return was Rs. 14,06,940. Income arising outside India thus,...
Tag this Judgment!Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. Swadeshi Sugar Supply Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal199
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by S. Mukharji,, J. dated September 14, 1977 in which the learned Judge has made no order on the stay application under Section 10 of the Civil P. C.2. The prior suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Machili-patnam in Andhra Pradesh by Challapalli Sugars Ltd. against the respondent above named, inter alia, for the payment of the balance price of sugar sold. The goods were delivered to the carriers. While in the custody of the carriers the goods were destroyed by fire which broke out on April 16, 1974.3. The Calcutta suit was filed by Swadeshi Sugar Supply Pvt. Ltd. the defendant in the Andhra Suit at a later point of time, inter alia, for refund of the price paid to theplaintiff in the Andhra Suit on account of the very same goods under the same contract. In the Calcutta suit it is contended that the said goods had not been delivered although the same were paid for. It is the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Mittal Vs. Mohanlal Mittal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2199
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of Roy Chowdhury Judge dated June 13, 1977 made in an application for contempt of Court.2. No Rule nisi for contempt was issued. It appears that at the very initial stage on behalf of the contemner an unconditional apology was tendered to Court, for having produced in Court, at the hearing of the matter, a wrong copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 15th January 1977, the language whereof was different from the admittedly correct copy thereof which wag also produced before the Court. Thereafter it was submitted that it was through a bona fide mistake and inadvertence that the incorrect copy was produced before the Court. Such incorrect copy was directed to be kept in the record of this matter.3. Before the Court below the petitioner moving for contempt submitted that merely stating that it is a mistake would not exonerate the contemnor from being guilty of contempt as they would have utilised the document a...
Tag this Judgment!Central Manbhum Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. and anr. Etc. Vs. Additional Collec ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal95
ORDER Whereas it appears on scrutiny that a sum of Rs. 52,28,000.00 has been paid to you (K. N. Banerjee) in shape of the bonds Nos. P. T. O. 615795 to 616320 -- total 576 bonds in your capacity as Director of M/s. Central Manbhum Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. on 17-8-1977 although the actual amount payable to you works out as Rs. 14,65,448.00 and whereas you had executed an indemnity bond while receiving the above payment from the State Govt. and whereas the amount paid in excess stands recoverable under law. I Sri A. C. Chakraborty, Additional Collector, Dhanbad and successor-in-office of Late R. C. P. Sinha, Compensation Officer. Dhanbad do hereby in exercise of powers vested in me under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the Compensation proceedings are guided being the proceedings taken under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 do hereby review the Final orders passed in the above case by Late R. S. P. Sinha and order that the payment of the said amount already made or being ma...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Minerals and Mill Stores Traders Vs. K.M. Chemicals and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal215
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order of dismissal of an application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and for setting aside the order of dismissal of the undefended suit when it appeared in the list of undefended suits.2. The order of dismissal was passed by Ajay Kumar Basu, J. on August 24, 1977 without delivering any judgment or indicating any reason for such exercise of discretion in dismissing the application. We have repeatedly observed that in matters like this, when the Court exercises its discretion in allowing or dismissing or making no order on the application, the Court should be pleased to give its reasons so that the appeal Court would be in a position to appreciate whether or not the discretion was judicially exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil P. C. provide, inter alia, that if the plaintiff in his application for set-ting aside the dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Brothers Vs. Sakti Prasanna Chaterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal129,87CWN70
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This matter has come up before this Special Bench as a result of the difference of opinion expressed by the Bench of S. K. Datta and H. N. Sen, JJ. in the above matter with another Division Bench decision of this Court in Manick Chand Durga Prosad & Bros. v. Bulakidas Baheti, reported in : AIR1969Cal104 .2. The interesting point on which the above two Division Beaches have expressed their divergent views is whether the Kent Controller has the power to correct a rent control challan by which a tenant deposits rent with the Rent Controller in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. To be more precise, the point involved is whether the rent control challans, with which the rents have been deposited in the wrong name of the landlord Sakti Prosad Chatterjee in the place and stead of Sakti Prosanna Chatterjee, could be corrected by the Rent Controller. The point has to be decided on the basis of the law as stands and as is pro...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Dhiraj Bala Karia Vs. Jethia Estate Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal166,87CWN131
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. This Special Bench has been constituted under Rule 1 (ii), Chap. II of the Appellate Side Rules for hearing the following question of law which has arisen in two Civil Orders under Section 115 of the Civil P. C., 1908:'Whether a suit for specific performance of a contract for granting lease together with a prayer for Delivery of Possession of thesuit property should be valued under Clause (xii) (c) or under Clause (v) of Section 7 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970.'2. On 16th May, 1980, Sm. Dhiraj Bala Karia, instituted Title Suit No. 968 of 1980 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, inter alia, for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, M/s. Jethia Estates Pvt. Ltd., from letting out to any person other than the plaintiff the ground floor and the first floor of Premises No. 21, Rupchand Roy Street measuring about 4330 sq. ft. The plaintiff averred that there had been an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for letting o...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Payments (Coking Coal) Vs. Sourindra Nath Basu and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal605
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated Aug, 26, 1980, passed by Mrs. Khastagir, J. in an application for an order for vacating or modifying or varying the order of attachment dated Jan. 22, 1975. The application was apparently made under the provisions of Order 21. Rule 58 of the Civil P. C, as amended in 1976 but in the cause title it has been described as an application pro interesse suo or in the nature thereof.2. There is no judgment in the matter but the learned Judge ordered as follows:'Upon reading an application of Commissioner of payments (Coking Coal) (hereinafter referred to as the said applicant) pursuant to a notice of motion dated the first day of July last and upon hearing the Advocates for the parties appearing herein.It is ordered that the application made in this suit be and the same is hereby dismissed. And it is further ordered that the said applicant do pay to the plaintiff/respondents their costs of and incidental to this application to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »