Kolkata Court April 1985 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.
Shyam Sundar Shaw Vs. Netai Chand Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal230
Sukumar Chakravarty, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore, in other (sic) Appeal No. 320 of 1971, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Midnapore, in Title Suit No. 93 of 1970. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. It was the case of the plaintiff in brief that the partnership business was run under the style of Mrs. Farquhar alone and that on 10-7-62 Mrs. Farquhar accepted the defendant Shyam Sundar Shaw as 8 as partner in her business with effect from June 1962 on the defendant's payment of Rs. 6000/- only towards capital. Mrs. Farquhar from time to time took loans from the plaintiff and the total amount of such loan stood at Rs. 6000/-. Mrs. Farquhar took the aforesaid loan with an intention to sell her share in the partnership business to the plaintiff provided she would fail to repay the loan. Mrs. Fa...
Amiya Kumar Tarafdar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD172(Kol.)
1. The assessee is an individual. The assessee during the previous year purchased colour photo developing machine from India Photographic Co.Ltd., Bombay, through State Bank of India, Park Circus Branch, Calcutta. The assessee was allowed the investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at Rs. 82,433. The Commissioner after the completion of the assessment found that the assessee should not have been allowed the investment allowance for the assessment year 1980-81 and, therefore, the order passed by the ITO to that effect was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He took action under Section 263 of the Act and issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. The assessee pleaded before the Commissioner that the investment allowance under Section 32A was rightlyallowed to the assessee. A written submission was made by the assessee. It was indicated before the Commissioner that the assessee had been treated as a small-scale ...
Arrah-sasaram Light Railway Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD399(Kol.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 16-7-1983 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1979-80, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1979.2. The assessee-company was incorporated on 19-10-1909 under the Companies Act, 1866 and is an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956. Under an agreement with the then Government of Bengal and subsequent agreements with the District Board of Sahabad, the assessee-company was engaged in running a Railway between Arrah and Sasaram. It appears that the company wanted to close down its operations in 1975 due to heavy loss but the Central Government offered some subsidy to keep the Railway of the assessee in operation. However, the Railway Board of the Central Government asked the company to close its operations by its letter dated 29-11-1977 and so the company closed its business operations with effect from 15-2-1978. At its extraordinary general meeting held on 29-3-1978 the assessee-co...
Magor Holdings Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD176(Kol.)
1. The assessee is a limited company. The assessee acquired a house property known as 'Sedgomore Cottage at Ootacamund' on 19-10-1968 for Rs. 1,05,000. The assessee further spent an amount on the acquisition of the property at Rs. 16,275. The total cost of the assessee, therefore, was at Rs. 1,21,275. The above house property was sold by a registered conveyance deed dated 17-2-1973 for Rs. 1,85,000. There was a capital gain on the transaction at Rs. 63,725 (Rs. 1,85,000 minus Rs. 1,21,275). The ITO, it appears from the original assessment order, treated the capital gain as long-term capital gain and, accordingly, after allowing set off of capital loss of Rs. 30,438 determined for the assessment year 1970-71, took the net capital gain of Rs. 33,287. It would be relevant to mention at this stage that during the year under appeal, Section 2(42A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was inserted with effect from 1-4-1974 defining 'short-term capital asset'.The definition indicates that...
Arpee Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Cal60,89CWN853
ORDER1. The caveat having been lodged, this revisional application has been heard as a contested application. In this revisional application the plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-3-85 passed by the learned Judge 8th Bench in charge of 12th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, rejecting on the ground of maintainability, the plaintiffs application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the order dated 14-8-84 whereby the application under Order 39, Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 was allowed ex pane and the ad interim order of injunction already granted was vacated, and for rehearing the petition under Order 39, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff brought the Title Suit No. 660 of 1984 against the opposite party-defendents and filed an application under Order 39, Rr. 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 (United Bank of India) from making payment tp the...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Narayan Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC235,1986(25)ELT148(Cal)
N.G. Chaudhuri, J.1. Union of India represented by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Burdwan Division, has come up in appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved with the order of acquittal dated 2nd June, 1980 recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, in C.R. Case No. 46 of 1978. The case arose out of a petition of complaint and on the date the impugned order was passed the complainant and his witnesses did not appear before the Court and the learned Magistrate passed the following order :'In the circumstances I am inclined to deal with the case in accordance with Section 256, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted under Section 256, Cr.P.C. Hence, ordered, that the accused persons be acquitted under Section 256, Cr. P.C.'2. The order of acquittal quoted above leaves no room for doubt that the learned Magistrate treated the case as a summons case. In appeal, therefore, a very interesting question has been raised...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Payments and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal236
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The petitioners in this case are Union of India, Coal India Limited and the Central Coal Fields Limited. The Respondent No. 3, Khas Karanpura Collieries Limited was the owner of a nationalised coal mine.2. By virtue of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the Schedule to the Act stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government. The Act provided for payment to the owner of a coal mine the amounts specified in the Schedule to the Act (Section 5). A Commissioner of Payments was appointed for the purpose of disbursing the amounts specified in the Schedule to the owners (Section 17). Additional payment was to be made for the amount, as may become due to the owner of a coal mine in relation to the period during which the management 6f the coal mine remained vested in the Central Government (Section 18(2)). This provision became necessary ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganga Jamuna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR225(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the firm in an appeal, against the status of the assessee ?'2. The facts briefly stated are as follows :In the proceeding for assessment to tax, the assessee claimed continuation of registration on the basis of declaration filed in Form No. 12 under Section 184(7) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer without assigning any reason as to why the status of the assessee should be taken as association of persons, completed the assessment in the status of an association ofpersons. When the assessee went up in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he directed the Income-tax Officer to allow registration to the firm.3. The R...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. MartIn and Harris P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Cal)34,[1985]154ITR460(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. M/s. Martin & Harris (P.) Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1968-69, the corresponding previous year ending on December 31, 1967. During the said assessment year, the British pound sterling was devalued vis-a-vis the Indian rupee. The assessee at the relevant time had been manufacturing goods under licence from M/s. Organon Laboratories Ltd. of London, who were supplying to the assessee on credit major part of the materials needed for such manufacture. The price of such materials was, however, payable by the assessee in pound sterling.2. The ITO found that as a result of the devaluation, the liability of the assessee under the outstanding bills of the foreign supplier was reduced by Rs. 2,86,101 and added the said amount to the income of the assessee for being brought to tax.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC who sustained the addition.4. There was a further appeal by the assessee to th...
D.T.H. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal31
ORDERC.K. Banerji, J.1.This is an application for injunction restraining the defendant No. 1, Steel Authority of India Ltd. from enforcing or calling up the Bank Guarantee dated 31-8-1982 for Rs. 30,00,000/- given by the defendant No. 2. United Bank of India in favour of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 gave a contract to the plaintiff for dredging and deepening a reservior at Durgapur. To enable the plaintiff to bring the machinery and start the work, the defendant No. 1 advanced Rs. 30,00,000/- to the plaintiff. To secure the said advance of Rs. 30,00,000/- paid by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave the said Bank Guarantee through the United Bank of India.2. Mr. Biswaroop Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, submitted the plaintiff was induced to obtain the said contract by the defendant No. 1 by suppression of material facts, that the reservoir which was to be cleaned and deepened could not be deepened inasmuch as the bed of the reservoir which was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »