Kolkata Court August 1985 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Gwalior Webbing Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD282(Kol.)
1. The ITO while framing the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 in the case of the assessee-company stated at the end of the assessment order 'Add: Interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961--Rs. 30,178'. The said order of the ITO was challenged in appeal along with other grounds before the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that an appeal against that order under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') though not specifically provided for in Section 246 of the Act was maintainable in view of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Anglo Indian Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 384. He further found that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITO should have waived interest under Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Accordingly, the interest charged was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the department has come up in appeal.2. The contention of the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Continental Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: 1987(28)ELT11(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. M/s. Continental Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the appellant No. 1, carries on business of import and export and in course of its business imported into India under valid licences 2973.6 Kgs. (59 rolls) of Polyester plastic unsupported, of the specification 12 micron x 1020 mm x 3000 meters and 10.920 Kgs. (104 rolls) of the said material of specification 25 micron x 1020 mm x 3000 meters by the vessel 'Cristobal Maru' which arrived at Calcutta on or about the 23rd September, 1982.2. The Appellant No. 1 thereafter filed a bill of entry for warehousing the said goods which were landed at the Port of Calcutta. The said goods however were not warehoused and have been lying at the Port till date. Sometime in January 1983, the Appellant No. 1 applied for release of the goods for home consumption and submitted necessary documents for calculation and levy of customs duty.3. The Customs Authorities assessed that basic customs duty of 100% plus auxiliary duty as also an additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Dey Vs. Naihati Electrical Supply Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ88Cal
M.M. Dutt J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of one Sunil Kumar Dey, and it is directed against the order dated 29th April, 1981 of the learned Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Calcutta dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act disallowing the claim of the petitioner as not maintainable.2. The petitioner was employed under the opposite party M/s. Naihati Electric Supply Co. Ltd. The opposite party suspended the petitioner with effect from 11th April, 1968. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed by the opposite party. The opposite party filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the First Labour Court for approval of the order of dismissal. The Labour Court rejected the prayer of the opposite party for approval of the order of dismissal.3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court the opposite party m...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Halmira Estate Tea (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD287(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the department and the cross-objection filed by the assessee are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1978-79. The return for this year was due on 31-7-1978. The assessee filed the return on 31-7-1980. The assessee did not pay the 'self-assessment tax' under Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') before filing the return. That tax was paid on 22-8-1980. The ITO asked the assessee to show cause as to why it should not be penalised under Section 140A(3). The assessee replied that it could not pay the tax earlier due to lack of funds. The ITO did not find the above explanation to be statisfactory. He imposed penalty under Section 140A(3). The quantum of penalty was calculated by him at 2 per cent of the tax payable. However, he took the period of default to be 24 months, i.e., from 31-7-1978 to 22-8-1980. It is to be...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Kumar Basak Vs. Salil Kumar Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal298,1986(1)CHN81,(1988)2CompLJ248(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J. 1. On 2nd May 1983 the appellant made an application before M.M. Dutt and Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, JJ. and obtained an order granting leave to the appellantto file the above appeal against the order dated 3rd February 1983 of Mrs. Monjula Bose, J. without a certified copy thereof on usual undertaking and for stay of the said order. Pursuant to the said leave memorandum of appeal was filed without a certified copy of the said order. The above application was made returnable on 6th May 1983. No order for stay of the operation of the said order dated 3rd February 1983 was made. On the returnable date, i.e., 6th May 1983 the appeal Court gave directions for filing of affidavits in the said application. The said application is still pending.2. As there were certain mistakes in the cause title of the appeal an order was made on 16th June 1983 for amendment of the cause title of the appeal, thereafter appellant took extension of time and on 5th August 1983 cause title of the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. N.V. Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal338
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an umpire. The petitioner entered into a contract on 22nd/23rd Nov. 1982 by accepting the tender submitted by the respondent. The contract contained an arbitration clause that disputes arising out of the contract would be decided by arbitration. Disputes arose and reference was made to the joint arbitrators in accordance with the agreement. By a letter dt. 13-4-84 the arbitrators intimated the petitioner that they had received the statement of claim from the respondent and called upon the petitioner to submit its counter-statement on or before 2-5-84. The petitioner alleges that the joint arbitrators entered upon the reference without appointing an umpire. The petitioner by letter dt. 23-4-84 pointed out to the joint arbitrators that they did not appoint an umpire before entering upon the reference and requested them to appoint the umpire. It is alleged that in spite of such n...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Sen Vs. Gift-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1985
Reported in: [1987]164ITR565(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 35(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act.2. In or about 1959, the petitioner and his brother and some other members of his family promoted M/s. Allied Resins and Chemicals (Private) Limited. The petitioner had a large block of shares in that company. The shareholdings of the petitioner and other assets were shown in the petitioner's wealth-tax return and the petitioner was regularly assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax.3. On or about June 20, 1966, the petitioner transferred to his wife, Kalpana Sen, 500 ordinary shares of the company of the face value of Rs. 10 each.4. On the same date, that is, June 20, 1966, the petitioner also transferred 2,500 shares of Rs. 10 each to his son, Dilip Sen, who had attained majority on May 12, 1966.5. On September 28, 1966, the petitioner created a trust and transferred to the trustees 3,500 ordinary shares of the company for meeting...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Macneill and Berry Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR385(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Macneill & Berry Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1967-68, the corresponding accounting year ending on December 31, 1967. In the said assessment year, the assessee had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 49,367 on account of legal charges paid to its solicitors. Out of the said Rs. 49,367, the assessee initially claimed before the Income-tax Officer a deduction only of Rs. 2,250. But during the course of the assessment, the assessee by its letter dated July 31, 1971, also claimed a deduction of the balance Rs. 47,117.2. The Income-tax Officer did not at all consider the claim for deduction of the balance of Rs. 47,117. In respect of Rs. 2,250, the Income-tax Officer held that as the amount had been paid for legal services in connection with the reconstruction and transfer of capital of Rivers SteamNavigation Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), a debtor to the assessee and for which the assessee acted as an agent. H...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Tax Officer Vs. Bengal Potteries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC219(Cal)
C. Mookerjee, J.1. The Bengal Potteries Ltd., the respondent herein, at the material time was a registered dealer both under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941./ and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In exercise of his powers under Rule 27AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules the Commercial Tax Officer, Radha Bazar Charge, by two separate orders both dated 8th May, 1975, had refused to issue to respondent No. 1, form No. C declaration forms and form No. XXIVA declaration forms on the ground that the dealer had defaulted in submitting returns under the aforesaid two Acts since July, 1973. The principal point in this appeal is whether or not the said withholding of declaration forms to the respondent-company under Rule 27AA(2)(c) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules was legal and valid.2. His Lordship the Honourable Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was), by his judgment/order dated 29th September, 1975, made absolute in part the rule obtained by the Bengal Potteries Ltd. against th...
Tag this Judgment!Macneill and Barry Limited (Now Known as Macneill and Magor Ltd.) Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Cal)293,[1986]158ITR374(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts found and on record in the above references are that M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd., the assessee, was at the material time the agent of Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., a company incorporated in the United Kingdom which carried on business of inland navigation in and around India. At the material time, the assessee was a partly owned subsidiary of Inchcape & Co. Ltd., a company also incorporated in the United Kingdom. The majority of the shares of the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. was held by the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. (Holdings) Ltd. which was also a company incorporated in the United Kingdom.2. Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. had been incurring loss over successive years and fell into financial difficulties. The assessee had been incurring expenditure on behalf of Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. The assessee as the agent of the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. was also entitled to a commission. On account of the aforesaid, on December 31, 1964,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »