Kolkata Court July 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just 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. Ramchandra Poddar Charitable Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: [1987]164ITR666(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J.1. The assessee is a religious and charitable trust. The relevant assessment year is 1967-68 (financial year 1966-67). The issue before the Income-tax Officer was whether the donation of shares made by one charitable trust to another would amount to application of income for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee's income during the relevant accounting period was Rs. 30,201. The Income-tax Officer found that Rs. 13,387 were applied towards charitable purposes. The expenses amounted to Rs. 328. The Income-tax Officer calculated that there was an accumulation of a sum of Rs. 16,486 out of the year's income (Rs. 30,201 minus Rs. 13,715). This exceeded 25 per cent. of the assessee's income or Rs. 10,000. The assessee was, therefore, held liable to tax.3. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was argued that the assessee had donated 1,500 shares of Poddar Automobiles Ltd. valued at Rs. 15,000 t...
NilsIn Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC278,1985(22)ELT739(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner-firm, since the year 1965, had been manufacturing 'ultramarine blue' at its factory at 59, Grand Trunk Road, Liluah, District Howrah. The petitioner-firm had taken out requisite licence for manufacturing excisable goods and had also executed necessary bond under the Central Excise Rules, inter alia, undertaking to produce for charge of duty all excisable goods manufactured in its factory, to maintain accounts and to pay excise duty leviable thereon, etc. Both the petitioner and the Central excise authorities, until the time mentioned hereinafter, had acted on the basis that ultramarine blue manufactured by the petitioner was included within Item No. 141(5) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner was being assessed under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in respect of ultramarine blue according to the rate of duty mentioned against the goods specified in Item No. 141(5) of the First Sche...
Star Iron Works (P.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC27(Cal)
ORDERM.N. Roy, J.1. In this rule, which was obtained with the corresponding interim order on 9th August, 1977, the petitioners, whose particulars would be mentioned hereafter, have impeached the act of the seizure and the notice for production of their books of account in terms of the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. Petitioner No. 1, M/s. Star Iron Works (P) Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and is a registered dealer within the meaning of the said Act and also under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Central Act), and petitioner No. 2 has stated to be a shareholder and managing director of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners have stated that they mainly deal in overhead transmission lines, hard wire and supplies for sale of such commodity exclusively to Electricity Board under the management and control of various State Government, some particulars whereo...
Bhagirathi Co-operative Joint Farming Society Ltd. Vs. Howrah Zilla Pa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal125,87CWN981
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of Bhagira-thi Co-operative Joint Farming Society (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and is directed against an order dated October 12, 1982, passed by the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal, dismissing an appeal under Section 134 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), The opposite party Howrah Zilla Pari-shad (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) preferred a dispute under Section 86 of the said Act before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Howrah. The dispute so raised was to the effect that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant cooperative society for purchase of 3,00,000 bricks from the society and they paid the price thereof being a sum of Rs. 34,500/- but the defendant society delivered only 1,74,000 pieces of bricks . and failed and neglected to deliver the balance 1,26,000 pi...
Hihir Kr. Singh Vs. A.D.M. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Cal426,87CWN1098
ORDERA.M. Pal, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause why the ex parte revisionof the record of rights by altering the mode of cultivation by recording the names of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as Bargadars should not be quashed or cancelled and for ancillary reliefs connected with the said prayer.2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners (none appeared for the respondent officers who have been named parties) drew my attention to the fact that in 1977 record of rights was revised and objections were invited and after that his clients' names were recorded as owners without any entry of the name of any Bargadar.3. In the month of April/May, 1979 Bijoy Bagdi and Khudiram Das claimed that they had been declared as Bargadars.4. In paragraph 5 of the petition the petitioners state that no notice nor any copy of the petition as claimed to have been file...
Lipton (India) Limited and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal109,1984(1)CHN6
ORDERManashnath Ray, J.1. Although this Rule which was obtained on 23-12-1977, challenging a notification dated 12-2-1975 under Section 2(13), West Bengal Shops & Establishments Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the validity of certain provisions of the said Act and the Rule was made ready as regards service on 6-9-1968, Nobody has either appeared for the respondents or taken any steps to file any affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of them. It should be noted that while issuing the Rule, there was an interim order made, restraining the respondents concerned from giving effect to the notice as impeached and from enforcing the provisions of the said Act to them depots/godowns and from taking any Civil and Criminal proceedings against the petitioners for not implementing the provisions of the said Act to their depots until the final disposal of the application, for a limited period and such interim order was thereafter directed to continue on 5th January 1978. till th...
Gopal Chakraborty Vs. Sm. Sabitamoyee Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal47,87CWN952
ORDERA.M. Pal, J. 1. This Rule arises out of an application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. and is directed against Order No. 12 dated August 19, 1981 passed by the Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2471 of 1980 rejecting a petition made by the defendant-petitioner Gopal Chakraborty under Order 6, Rule 5 of the Code. 2. Facts of the case shortly are that the Plaintiffs-opposite parties filed a suit in the City Civil Court against the petitioner herein for a decree declaring that the defendant has no right to enter into or possess the shop room, decree for accounts and a decree for possession and for other reliefs ancillary thereto. 3. The defendant before filing the written statement made an application for particulars. The learned Judge dismissed the said application stating that 'in the garb of better particulars the defendant wants the plaintiffs to disclose their evidence before the defendant has filed his written statement.' __ 4. Mr. Tapas Roy...
Brooke Bond India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1983
Reported in: 1988(34)ELT590(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Brooke Bond India Ltd., the petitioner No. 1, is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Satya Paul Saigal, the petitioner No. 2, is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 carries on business in tea. Purchased in India, such tea is sold by the petitioner No. 1 in India and is also exported abroad.2. Production of tea in India involves the following :Tea leaves plucked from plants in the tea gardens are subjected to successive processes known as withering, rolling fermentation, firing and sorting at the factories or processing centres.3. Manufactured as aforesaid, tea is packed in chests in bulk by the manufacturers and are cleared upon payment of Central Excise Duty for being sold in different auction centres. 4. The petitioner's case is that the manufacture of tea is completed in the factory and processing centres as aforesaid whereby a manufactured product known as tea, fit for human consumption, is brought into ex...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mcleod and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1983
Reported in: [1987]164ITR681(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The facts relating to these cases have been stated by the Tribunal in its statement of case in Income-tax Reference No. 79 of 1966. In that statement of case, the Tribunal referred the following question of law to the High Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 95,868 incurred for the purpose of maintaining the goodwill and reputation of the assessee-company was a permissible deduction in computing the assessee's business profits under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The facts relevant for the purposes of these cases were stated by the Supreme Court in the case of the assessee in CIT v. McLeod and Co. Ltd. : [1970]78ITR22(SC) and the same run as follows (at pages 22 and 23):'The matter arises thus : The respondent-assessee made a claim in its assessment for the assessment year 1952-53, inter alia, for an allowance of Rs. 95,868 as provision for extraordinary legal and other expenses in ...
Barka Rajwar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1851
B.C. Chakrabarti, J. 1. This re-visional application is directed against an appellate order affirming an order of conviction of the petitioners on a charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer R. I. for six years.2. On the information given by the informant P. W. 1 Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee that a dacoity was committed in his quarters on 29-12-1978 at night a case being Purulia P. S. Case No. 16 of the same date was started.3. The informant Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee is the head-master of a school at Hutumura within Purulia P. S. He was allotted, a quarter for his residence adjacent to the school. At the time of the occurrence some relatives of the informant having come to visit the place with a view to stay with him the informant slept in a room of the school with his wife while the visitors were sleeping in the quarter. At about midnight he woke up on hearing an alarm raised by the inmates and came out of his room with a torchlight to the verandah of hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »