Kolkata Court June 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khandelwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Cal)78,[1986]158ITR207(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. Khandelwal Bros. Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1971-72, the corresponding accounting year ending on October 29, 1970. In its return, the assessee sought to provide for a sum of Rs. 80,000 on account of gratuity. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of the said amount on the ground that it was only a contingent liability. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer.2. On a further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal accepted the asses-see's contentions and allowed the deduction claimed.3. On an application by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question stated to be a question of law, has been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 80,000 representing a provision for gratuity was an allowable ...
Chloride India Limited Vs. Ganesh Das Ramgopal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal74,89CWN933
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This revisional application which is being heard as a contested application raises a short point as to whether the Judgment-debtor is entitled to claim a notice from the decree-holder for levying execution by lodging a caveat under Section 148A of Civil P.C. The Ld. Registrar City Civil Court, Calcutta has taken the view that the judgment-debtor is not entitled to such a notice in pressing the order dated March 4, 1985 in Ejectment Execution case No. 38 of 1985 and this is the order now being challenged before us by the judgment-debtor.2. Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the Judgment-debtor has contended that Section 148A was incorporated in the Code by the 1976 amendment in wide terms. According to Mr. Ghosh Section 148A provides that where an application is expected to be made or has been made in a suit or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted in a court any person claiming a right to appear before the said Court on the hearing of the application may lodg...
Braithwaite, Burn and Jessop Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Gafoor an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal128
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This appeal from an original order is by the defendant. The order impugned is one dated April 11, 1981, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Asansol, dismissing an appeal under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 225 of 1980. It was so dismissed not on merits but on the ground that such an application is not maintainable. It will be necessary to refer to the facts which may be set out shortly as follows : 2. The respondent Abdul Gafur instituted Money Suit No. 18 of 1961 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge for recovery of a sum of Rs. 56,237.69 alleged to be the balance dues of the plaintiff for the works done for the defendant company. Though filed in the year 1961, the suit came up for peremptory hearing for the first tune on March 28, 1978, when one of the plaintiffs witnesses being examined in part, the suit was adjourned till May 8, 1978. On the adjourned date, the suit was again adjourned in the ab...
Bally Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR736(Cal)
Ajtt K. Sengupta, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1968-69. 2. In the course of the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1967-68, which was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer noticed payment of salary of Rs. 12,972 to Smt. Kamala Devi Saboo, wife of Sri T. C. Saboo, who was found to be in the top employment of the assessee-company. On being asked to explain the nature of duties performed by the lady and her qualifications which would enable her to perform the duties, the assessee by its letter dated February 11, 1969, to the Income-tax Officer submitted that Smt. Kamala Devi Saboo was working in the field of labour welfare and labour relations and her duties included welfare and social work among the workmen and their families. The Income-tax Officer, however, observed that the assessee did not come forward with any evidence regarding the duties allege...
income-tax Officer Vs. Harbanslal Malhotra and Sons Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD328(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the claim of depreciation to the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80. This is opposed by the assessee.2. By its letter dated 20-9-1977 the assessee-company asked for change of accounting year. By his letter dated 15-12-1977, the ITO informed the assessee that 'the change of accounting year is allowed from 31-3-1978 to 30-6-1978 to start with'. The change of accounting year was allowed 'subject to the condition that it may be withdrawn in any of the subsequent years, if it is found, the change of accounting year leads to loss to the revenue'. By subsequent letter dated 20-12-1977 the same ITO informed the assessee that 'the period of 15 months from 1-4-1977 to 30-6-1978 is being divided into two assessment years, relevant accounting years being 1-4-1977 to 31-3-1978 and 1-4-1978 to 30-6-1978 for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively'.He advised it to make payment under ...
Nirupama Pal Vs. Kalipada Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Cal346,89CWN945
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act involves a point of law on which judicial decisions are not uniform. The point so involved is as to whether a debt incurred by a debtor who was subsequently adjudged to be an insolvent at a time when the proceeding was pending but the order of adjudication had not been made can be said to be a debt provable under the Act.2. Facts relevant for our present purpose are not in dispute. On May 22, 1967, the present appellant, Nirupama Pal instituted Insolvency Case No. 2 of 1967 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Hooghly, for adjudging the first respondent Kalipada Roy Chowdhuri as insolvent. It was a proceeding under the Provincial Insolvency Act. An interim receiver was appointed on July 26, 1967. On July 23, 1967, Kalipada executed a Hundi for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- in favour of Amarendra Nath Sen who obtained an ex parte decree against Kalipada in a suit in the original side of this Court on August ...
Parimal Banerjee Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ220
N.G. Chaudhuri, J.1. Parimal Banerjee, hereinafter to be referred to simply as Parimal for the sake of brevity, has come up in appeal aggrieved with the judgment, of conviction and sentence rendered against him by the Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 1980. He was charged under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 201/34 I.P.C. on the allegation that in furtherance of common intention of himself, his mother Lilaprobha, Banerjee and another Swapan Karrnakar they intentionally caused the death of Manju Dutt, wife of Sudhir Dutt on 28-8-78 and caused disappearance of evidence of the offence by secreting the dead body. Lilaprobha Banerjee faced the trial jointly with Parimal and has been acquitted. Swapan has been absconding. Parimal has been convicted of both the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. divorced from and independently of Section 34 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the first mentioned offence and to seven years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›