Kolkata Court September 1984 Judgments
Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1984
Reported in: (1985)13ITD173(Kol.)
1. These appeals are by the assessee in which common points are raised and the facts are identical. Accordingly, the counsels of both the sides have addressed us in one set. We, accordingly, consolidate the appeals for disposal by this common order.2. The appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 30-11-1979. The issue involved is regarding the claims made by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Surtax Act').3. The appeals have been fixed for hearing on several occasions. But the same have been adjourned from time to time at the request of the assessee on some ground or the other. Ultimately, the appeals were fixed up for hearing during which arguments are made before us by both the sides. Briefly speaking, the facts of the case are as stated below.4. The ITO noted in the assessment order for the assessment year 1969-70 that the order was being passed under Section 6(2) of the Surtax Act. The assessee is a comp...
Tag this Judgment!Power Tools and Appliances Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD375(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-12-1982, by which he confirmed the order passed by the ITO under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. While making the original assessment, the ITO had given credit for the deposit of Rs. 26,638 made on 15-12-1976 under the Companies Deposit (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976. Subsequently, the ITO was of the opinion that he had committed a mistake in allowing such credit inasmuch as per provisions of the aforesaid Scheme, the assessee was required to deposit the amount on or before 14-12-1976. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 154 and withdrew the benefit of credit that was given in the original assessment.3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of the ITO by observing as under: Since the language of the law is very clear that the deposit is to be made before the due date of last instalment of advance tax and since the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Fuel Marketing Co. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal143,89CWN263
M.M. Dutt, J.1. The appellants, M/s. Industrial Fuel Marketing Company and others have, in this appeal, challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge discharged the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The Coal Washeries known as Kathara, Kargali and Swang, situate in the district of Giridih, in the State of Bihar admittedly belonged to the Central Coal Fields Ltd., the respondent No. 3. In these washeries. a large quantities of coal from Hazaribagh/Giridih coal fields are brought in for processing in order to bring out good quality of coal required for the steel plants. In the course of such processing, water containing very fine particles of coal known as 'sludge' or 'slurry' overflows and run into the neighbouring raiyati fields and also into the river Damodar. As a result, this ejected sludge or slurry is deposited on raiyati lands as well as on the river bed and b...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Chaudhary Vs. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd., and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC165,1986(6)LC138(Calcutta),1986(23)ELT321(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. These four appeals, two by the writ petitioner Ramniwas Chaudhary and the remaining two by the Metal Scraps Trade Corporation, hereinafter referred to as MSTC have been preferred against the judgment and order dated July 17, 1984 of a learned single Judge of this Court disposing of the writ petitions filed by the appellant, Ramniwas Chaudhary.2. Shorn of all details, it may be stated that Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Company, advertised for the sale of two old ships named M.V. Jaltaranga and M.V. Jalagirija for the purpose of plying. As there was no response for the purchase of the vessels for plying, the appellant, Ramniwas Chaudhary, a ship breaker, offered to purchase the same for breaking up and converting the same into scraps at a price of Rs. 80 lakhs and Rs. 70 lakhs respectively. The company by two letters both dated March 15, 1984, asked for the approval of the Director-General of Shipping for the sale of the said two...
Tag this Judgment!The Eastern Bank Ltd. Vs. Parts Services of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Cal61,89CWN1021
1. This suit was filed by the Eastern Bank Ltd on 3rd Oct., 1969 for a decree for a sum of Rs. 7,51,718.96p and the sale of the securities referred to in the schedules annexed to the plaint and the application of the sale proceeds towards the pro tanto satisfaction of Bank's claim against the defendant 1 as the principal debtor and defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 as the guarantors in consideration of the loans granted or to be granted by the plaintiff Bank to the defendant 1 for which it is claimed in the plaint, defendants 2, 3, 4 and Sri D. N. Mukherjee and original defendant 5 stood as sureties.2. The plaintiff Bank's case is that the defendant 1 had a current account with overdraft facilities with the condition that such loans would carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The plaintiffs (hereinafler to be referred to as Bank) case is that as security for the advances made by the bank in the said overdraft account the defendant 1 deposited and placed with the plaintiff diverse goods a...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Harekchand and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC235,1986(23)ELT306(Cal),[1985]59STC224(Cal)
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this application the petitioners ask for a writ of mandamus or prohibition prohibiting the respondents from making any assessment or collecting any tax or further tax on 'gudaku' or 'guraku' packed or unpacked under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972. The petitioners also pray for writ of or in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to make refund of taxes already assessed and collected in respect of 'gudaku' or 'guraku' sold during the periods 4 quarters ended Chait Sudi 8, 2028, 2029, 2030 and 2031 Sambat year and subsequent periods.2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a dealer within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act). The petitioners have been dealing in tobacco brought from outside the State of West ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Manisha Mukherjee Vs. Asoke Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1224
N.G. Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a petition complaining of contempt of Court. It has been filed with the consent of the Advocate-General given under Section 15(l)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner alleges that the statement the contemnor-opposite party made before Division Bench of this Court in connection with the hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 1979 on 17-9-81 to the effect that he had no confidence in the Bench constituted by the Judges named without disclosing any reason or material in support thereof amounted to contempt inasmuch as it scandalised or lowered the authority of the Court, interfered with the course of judicial proceedings or obstructed the administration of justice. In the appeal aforesaid the petitioner was appellant and the opposite party was respondent.2. For proper appreciation of the charge of contempt of Court brought by the petitioner it is necessary to give the antecedent facts in some details. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Co...
Tag this Judgment!National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. G. Ranjan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal23,[1986]60CompCas966(Cal),89CWN186
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J. 1. The above revisional applications arise out of three different orders of injunction issued at the instance of the opposite parties, restraining the petitioner Corporation from enforcing the Bank guarantees executed in its favour. They involve identical questions of fact and law. This common judgment will, therefore, dispose of all the three cases. It will be sufficient if we refer to the material facts of C. O. No. 1817 of 1984 only. 2. The defendant-petitioner, the National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. which is a Government Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 entered into a contract with Coal India Ltd. for setting up , a Housing Complex at Dankuni. Hooghly. On or about 23rd February. 1982, the petitioner-Corporation invited tender for construction of different buildings at Dankuni Coal Complex and after negotiations an offer was made by the plaintiff-opposite party. M/s. G. Ranjan, a firm, by their letter dated 22-4-82. A bi-lateral ag...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Kalyani Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal243,89CWN27
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This revisional application raises a short point as to whether and how far a court which had granted a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property on payment of the balance consideration within a time specified, can subsequently extend the time for payment of such balance consideration. There is some divergence in the judicial opinion on the point and, as such, it requires very careful consideration. 2. The plaintiff/petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 67 of 1979 for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property against the defendant/opposite party. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge but succeeded on an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 389 of 1982 before the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore. On March 25, 1983, the learned Additional District Judge in decreeing the plaintiffs suit directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance of the consideration money to the extent of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.S. Kothari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC81,1987(30)ELT156(Cal)
ORDERThe importation of the motor car along with fittings worth Rs. 1,20,973.73 without a valid licence is prohibited under Section 111 of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act of 1947 as amended and Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry's Order No. 17/55, dated 17-12-1955. I, accordingly, confiscate the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. In lieu of confiscation the importers are however, given the option under Section 125 ibid., to clear the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) within 15 days from the date of issue of this order.'20. There are two other cars which have been imported by two different persons, one by Shankarlal Sharaf, the other by Gobindlal Agarwalla. The cars were Toyota Cressider and Honda. Both the cars were gifted by one Atu Balani of Hongkong. It appears that no enquiry was made of the circumstances under which Atu Balani allegedly gifted two cars, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »