Kolkata Court November 1984 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD239(Kol.)
1. This is a departmental appeal, challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following points: That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified on facts and in law in holding that the payment made under contractual obligation would not be bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law in his finding that the amount of Rs. 75,588 paid to the employees was an allowable expenditure on commercial expediency.The facts giving rise to the above controversy are in a narrow compass and may be noted.2. The assessee is a company, whose accounting period for the assessment year 1979-80 ended on 31-12-1978. During the aforesaid previous year, the assessee-company paid bonus amounting to Rs. 5,18,505. The aforesaid bonus was paid in terms of an agreement of settlement arrived at between the assessee-company on the one hand and its workmen on the other, represented by various unions with the help of Conciliation Officer, Shri...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Bharat Roadways
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD647(Kol.)
1. The assessee is a firm. Its accounting year for the assessment year presently under consideration ended on Diwali 1979.2. The ITO granted depreciation to the assessee on its buses at the rate of 30 per cent.3. The assessee challenged the above order of the ITO before the Commissioner (Appeals) and claimed before him that depreciation on buses at the rate of 40 per cent be granted to the assessee in terms of amendment to item No. 9 of Group D forming part of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') by the Notification S.O.562(E), dated 24-7-1980, which came into force 'at once'. The above plea of the assessee was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). While granting the said relief to the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) made, inter alia, the following observations : The manner in which the notification has been inducted is unfortunate. Normally, in income-tax cases, changes are made with effect from a particular date. Ordinarily, date is the 1st April o...
Tag this Judgment!Subal Dutta and Sons P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Compa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas822(Cal)
Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. An Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, instituted a prosecution against Subal Dutta and Sons (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') and its six directors for an offence under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act' for short). The allegation in the complaint was that the company did not furnish to the Registrar of Companies its balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the year ending April 14, 1983. Aggrieved by the institution of the prosecution, all the seven accused persons have filed this application for quashing the same.2. To appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Dutt in support of this application, it will be necessary to detail the facts, which are not in dispute. The annual general meeting of the company for the year ending April 14, 1982, was held on October 12, 1982, and the annual general meeting for the year in question was initially held on October 12, 1983. Since the auditor's report and audited account...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tarachand Ghanashyamdas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: [1987]165ITR655(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. For the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54, the Tribunal referred the following question of law under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 'The assessee, a partnership firm, carried on business as selling agents of Burmah-Shell products, It has numerous branches in India with its head office at Calcutta. In both the years under reference, the original assessments were reopened on the grounds that income to the tune of Rs. 2,50,336 in the assessment year 1952-53 and Rs. 16,500 in the assessment year 1953-54 had escaped assessment. In the returns submitted after the reopening of the assessments, the assessee disclosed amounts of Rs. 2,50,336 and Rs. 24,039 for the respective assessment years 1952-53 and1953-54 in Part D of the return claimi...
Tag this Judgment!Susanta Kr. Das Gupta and ors. Vs. the Managing Director, Durgapur Ste ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ307Cal
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This is a writ petition by 141 employees of Durgapur Steel Plant, alleging that the respondent No. 8 Smt. Mina Das has wrongfully been promoted to the post of Head Assistant superseding the petitioners by promotion order dated 25th July, 1978. The case of the petitioners is that Smt. Mina Das originally did not belong to schedule caste and joined service as such. While in service Mina Das married a person belonging to the scheduled caste. The petitioner had no access to the personal file of Mina Das and had no means of knowledge at the time when Mina Das was promoted. The case of the petitioners is that the caste of a person is determined by birth and cannot be changed by marriage.2. The petitioners have also relied strongly on a circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 35/1/72 RU (SCTV) dated the 2nd May, 1975. In that circular it was stated:The guiding principle is that no person who was not a scheduled caste or a scheduled Tribe by birth will be de...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Chandra Ghosh Vs. Hemendra Kr. Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal233
Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 3 of 1980 for specific performance of a contract for sale.2. Premises No, 91, Ekdalia Road, P. S. Ballygunge Calcutta consists of two units, one of these units being comprised of the ground floor and the first floor with separate entrance and staircase on the east, facing the read and a car drive passage on the south and the other unit consisting of the second and third floor flats at the top with separate staircase and entrance, facing south on the passage, leading from the main road, and open space at the back and vacant land to the north of the building. The defendant-appellant, Sunil Chandra Ghosh, was the owner of the building at premises No. 91, Ekdatia Road. On 3-3-1972, there was an agreement for sale of the ground floor and the first floor of the premises to the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs. 75...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: [1986]161ITR301(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80M was to be allowed on the net dividend income as per the computations of Sections 56 and 57 of the Income-tax Act and not on the gross dividend ?'2. In view of the provisions contained in Section 80AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1968, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour the Revenue.3. Miss Seal has drawn our attention to a news item published in [1981] 130 ITR 7 to the effect that in the writ petition (W.P. No. 2043 of 1981) filed by Distributors (Baroda) Private Ltd. v. Union of India (sincereported in : [1985]155ITR120(SC) ), challenging the val...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Paper Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-i)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR695(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71, the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in view of Section 80A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee was not entitled to any relief under Section 80-I '2. The assessee claimed relief under Section 80-I on its profits as a priority industry. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not allow the relief. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to allow relief under Section 80-I on the gross total income before setting off the carried forward losses and development rebate. Against the said order, the Department went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80-I deduction on its profits as a priority industry before the set-off of the carried forw...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal441,89CWN459
ORDERU.C. Banerjee, J.1. This writ petition is directed against three several demand Notices issued by the Taxing Officer (Motor Vehicles), District Hooghly bearing Nos. 835/MV dated 30th June 1981, 1731 M. V. dated 16th Oct. 1981 and 1442-M.V. dated 6th Nov., 1982 for Rs. 6,08,341.38 p; 4,19,552.15 p. and 1,02,896.61 p. respectively under the provisions of West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act 1979 being the difference of road tax during the period from 1st June 1979 to 1st July 1981.2. Section 3 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act 1979 (West Bengal Act IX of 1979) provides that every owner of a registered motor vehicle or every person who owns or keeps in his possession or control any motor vehicle shall pay tax on such vehicle at the rate specified in the schedule. Subsection (2) of Section 3 provides that the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette from time to time increase the rates of tax specified in the schedule. Provided however that such increase shal...
Tag this Judgment!Bright Wire and Steel Industry Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal298
Pratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. In this application for setting aside the award dated 3rd March 1982 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner's counsel pressed three grounds as follows : --1. The arbitrator was biased against the petitioner. 2. The arbitrator has gone beyond the scope of the reference and made the award in excess of his jurisdiction. 3. The award was made out of time and is non est. The rest of the grounds were not pressed.2. With regard to the first ground, the allegations in the petition are that the arbitrator went out of his ways to accommodate the respondent by allowing it repeated extensions of time to file its statement of claim. According to the petitioner, such a conduct proved that the arbitrator was in favour of the respondent and was biased against the petitioner from the very beginning. It appears that on 9-7-81 the arbitrator directed the respondent to file statement of claim by 6-8-81 and the petitioner to file its counter statement on 7-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »