Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1987Cal370
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th Jan. 1975, passed in Money Suit No. 320 of 1971, by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta. By such determination, the suit for recovery of price of the goods, which were not duly delivered and damaged during transit, was decreed for a sum of Rs. 8,934.86p, with proportionate cost.2. There were two invoices involved being Ext 47 dt. 27th Aug. 1968 and D49 dt. 29th Aug. 1968 on the basis whereof, the claim for the decree as mentioned above, was made. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of a tea garden known as Narayanpur Tea Estate and on diverse dates, various consignments of tea in different chest were delivered to the defendant appellant, a common carrier, for carrying them from the said tea estate to Calcutta by road. The particulars of the consignment notes have been given in the plaint. As indicated earlier, the suit in question related to the invoices as mentioned above. It wou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)55CTR(Cal)30,[1987]165ITR138(Cal)
D.K. Sen, J.1. Pilani Investment Corporation Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. During the said assessment years, the assessee had income from dividend. The Income-tax Officer allowed relief under Section 85A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act '), as it then stood, not on the gross dividend income but on the net dividend income after ascertaining the same by deducting from the gross dividend proportionate expenditure and bank interest which was relatahle to the earning of such dividend income :The assessee thereafter applied before the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 of the Act for rectification of the assessments claiming allowance of the relief under Section 85A on the gross dividend. The Income-tax Officer rejected the said application of the assessee holding that the relief under Section 85A had been granted according to law and there is no mistake apparent from the records.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1989(39)ELT246(Cal)
Acts/Rules/Orders: Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11ACases Referred: S.S. Gadgil v. Lal & Company, 53 l.T.R. 231OREDRSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. I have been invited to intervene in a proceeding pursuant to a notice to show cause issued on 27th September 1985 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, against Vishwa Industrial Company Private Limited, the petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner assembled haulages and conveyors in the premises of the buyers. The assembly Is of components which are manufactured and on which excise duty is paid. At the time of erection and/or installation of haulages and con- veyors civil construction work is required to be carried out. Haulages and conveyors are part of immovable properties erected at sites. These cannot be regarded as 'goods' on which any duty of excise can be levied. The Excise Authority has taken a contrary view and a show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner on 16.5.1981 alleging...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Cal)165,[1986]159ITR524(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. Messrs. Kanoria General Dealers (P) Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1969-70, the accounting periods ending on June 30, of the calendar years of 1965 and 1968. In the said assessment year 1966-67, the assessee claimed allowance on depreciation and deduction of business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer found that during the accounting period ending on June 30, 1965, the total purchase of raw materials was worth only Rs. 1,220, consumption of raw materials was worth only Rs. 120 and stores and spares to the extent of only Rs. 70 had been consumed. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee had not commenced manufacturing and that production, if any, during the period was only on an experimental basis. On that ground, the Income-tax Officer disallowed depreciation and deduction of business expenditure.2. For the assessment year 1969-70, the Income-tax Officer found that the plant and machinery of the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1986CriLJ1620
J.N. Chaudhuri, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1983 arises out of Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1983 (Sessions Case No. 28 of 1983) held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Asansol. In the said trial the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 (Part I), I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, by the judgment and order dt. 19-8-83. The charge against the appellant was that on or about the 23rd of June, 1982 at Sealdanga, Chamarpara, P. S. Kulti, District Burdwan, he caused the death of his wife Smt. Lakshrni Ruhi Das, with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on the 23rd June, 1982, during day time, the appellant assaulted his wife Lakshrni at his house at Chamarpara, Sealdanga, Kulti, following a domestic quarrel between his wife and himself, and that as a result of such assault, Lakshmi died at a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1988]172ITR354(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. In this case, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that weighted deduction under Section 35B could not be allowed on freight of Rs. 21,86,115 and insurance of Rs. 76,918 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax liability for the year could not be deducted in arriving at the total income under the Income-tax Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the written down value of the depreciable assets and not their original cost should be taken into account in computing the capital employed for the purpose of calculating the deduction allowed under the section ?'2. The point...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]165ITR124(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted this statement of the case and has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty could be imposed upon the assessee in terms of Section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation thereunder relating to the assessment year 1964-65 ?'2. The assessee carries on business, wholesale and retail, in cloth and jute. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee, on December 7, 1964 filed a return showing total income of Rs. 49,558. The Income-tax Officer found that in the assessee's books, there was an entry dated April 18, 1962, showing a cash credit of Rs. 25,000 in the name of one Jagadish Prosad Agarwalla. The assessee pleaded that the entry represented a loan transaction from Jagadish Prosad Agarwalla. In support, he filed a confirmation letter from the creditor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Cal)150,[1987]164ITR730(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the confessional statement given before the Department by Shri Vindananda Surekha, Surekha Jute Co., the Tribunal was right in deleting the amount of Rs. 60,000 from the total income of the assessee relating to the assessment year J 964-65 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the confessional statement given by Shri Tarachand Surekha, the Tribunal was right in deleting the amount of Rs. 25,000 credited in the name of Jain Finance Distributors (India) (P.) Ltd. for the assessment year 1965-66? ' 2. The question was whether the genuineness of the loans claimed to have been advanced by Vindananda Surekha, Surekha Jute Co. and also Tarachand Surekha were proved by the assessee. The question really is whether the assessee has been able to discharge the onu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1986]161ITR413(Cal)
S.C. Jain, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the loss of Rs. 8,96,300 suffered bythe assessee in speculation transactions in PDOs was to be set off against its brokerage income earned from those transactions '2. The grievance of the Department is that the Tribunal has allowed the speculation loss of Rs. 8,96,300 to be deducted from the profits earned from brokerage income. The Department contends that the PDO loss arose out of speculative transactions whereas the brokerage income was from business activities. Therefore, the loss from speculation could not be adjusted against the income from business. 3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that it was well settled that dealings in transactions of pucca delivery orders which were not ultimately settled by delivery of goods must be regarded as speculative transactions. The Appellate Assistant Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)23ITD161(Kol.)
1. This is the appeal by the assessee which is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-1-1981 for the assessment year 1976-77.2. The first ground of appeal is of general nature which requires no decision.3. The next point of appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 7,91,079 claimed by the assessee as deduction on account of export duty refundable as per conditions of sale to the foreign buyer and that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of contract for sale which should have been considered for ascertaining the liability of the assessee to refund the amount during the accounting year, as an ascertaining liability.4. The ITO noted in the assessment order that the accounting period of the assessee relevant to the year under consideration ended on 30-9-1975. The assessment was done Under Section 143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')- The method of accounting was noted...
Tag this Judgment!