Kolkata Court January 1986 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. Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) (P. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR115(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred to by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act '):' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1963-64, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,58,000 could be regarded as revenue expenditure to be deducted in computing the income, profits and gains of the assessee during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1966-67 ' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, the facts are not in dispute. The assessee claimed relief under Section 84 in respect of glass bulb blowing unit, gaseous lamp unit and miniature prefocus lamp. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for the first year under reference by a short order stating that the glass bulb ...
Joshi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Cal)1,[1986]162ITR268(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. M/s. Joshi & Co., the assessee, is a partnership firm. Till December 16, 1975, the partners of the assessee were Amritlal Parkhani, Prataprai Joshi, Dilip Joshi and Bhupendra Joshi. The partnership was constituted by a deed dated April 28, 1973, and contained, inter alia, the following clause :' If any partner shall die during the partnership, then his heirs executors, administrators or representatives or any person or persons to whom he may by will bequeath the same shall be entitled to the share of such deceased partner in the capital, stock, property and effects of the partnership business and may either continue as a partner or partners inthe business in respect and to the extent of the share and interest of such deceased partner or may sell such share and interest in the same manner as are hereinbefore contained in Clause 17 concerning a sale by a retiring partner.'2. Bhupendra Joshi, one of the partners of the assessee, died on December 16, 1975--15 days pri...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) Pvt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Cal)195
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - Two questions of law have been referred to by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under s. 84 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1963-64, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 ?2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,58,000 could be regarded as revenue expenditure to be deducted in computing income, profits and gains of the assessee during the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1966-67 ?'2. So far as the first question is concerned the facts are not in dispute. The assessee claimed relief under s. 84 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of Glass Bulb Blowing Unit, Gaseous Lamp Unit and Miniature Prefocus Lamp. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee for the first year under reference by a short order stating that Glass Bulb Blowing Unit, Gaseous Lamp Unit and Miniature Prefocus Lamp Unit were in fact ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)55CTR(Cal)33,[1987]165ITR107(Cal)
M. G. MUKHERJI J. - The question of law referred to this court in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for its opinion is as follows.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 were invalid and as such the reassessment proceedings made in pursuance of the said invalid notices were illegal and void ?'The assessee, Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick, is assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer sought to reopen the assessments for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61 under section 147(a) of the Act. He issued notices under section 148 of the Act in the name of Panchanan Mallick and Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick for both the Years.Pursuant thereto, returns were thereafter filed by the assessee who took objection to the validity of the notices and the procedure of reopening contendin...
Okayti Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: [1986]160ITR487(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. M/s. Okayti Tea Company Limited, the appellant, filed its return under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72, the accounting year ending on December 31, 1970, on February 26, 1974. Notices were served thereafter by the Income-tax Officer under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and the date of hearing was fixed on March 11, 1974. 2. On March 11, 1974, the assessee did not appear at the hearing and the Income-tax Officer made an assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The Revenue deficit claimed by the assessee was disallowed to the extent ofRs. 1,25,000. The business loss was assessed at Rs. 33,680 of which 40% was allowed. Taking into account income from other sources, tax was charged on income computed at Rs. 65,442. 3. The appellant made an application under Section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for setting aside of the said ex parte assessment order which was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. 4. The appellant thereafter filed two ...
Lakhindar Samaddar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal237,90CWN670
Mookerjee, J.1. Some of the appellants were holders of licences issued under the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Older, 1967. The remaining appellants except one held licences under the provisions of the West Bengal Wheat and Wheat Products (Licensing, Control and Prohibition of Certain Classes of Commercial Transactions) Order, 1973. They have preferred these appeals against the order and judgment dated 3rd April, 1979 passed by Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. discharging the Rules obtained by the appellants, inter alia, challenging the order of the Governor of West Bengal passed in exercise of his powers under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964, directing that the said Rationing Order shall come into force on 4th September, 1978 in the areas specified in the Schedule below the said Notification. The areas specified included two Anchals within Regent Park Police Station, one Anchal under Jadavpore Police Station, some Gram Panchayats ...
Smt. Tarawati Debi Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Cal)183,[1986]162ITR606(Cal)
A.K. Sengupta, J.1. In this application, the petitioner has challenged three several notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Two of the notices are dated March 20, 1975, relating to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. The other notice dated February 20, 1978, is for the assessment year 1969-70. The ground of challenge is that the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding under Section 147(a) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, as the conditions precedent have not been satisfied.2. The reasons which have been recorded are identical for all the years which are to the following effect I 'The assessee constructed a H.P. at 48-D, Muktaram Babu Street, Calcutta-7, during the accounting years 1964 to 1967 corresponding to the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69. The case was referred to the Executive Engineer (Valuation), Unit-II, Calcutta, and report of valuation since received. The total cost of construction up to the assessment year 1969-70 has...
Satish Kumar Jhunjhunwalla Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas110(Cal)
Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J. 1. A petition of complaint was filed by opposite party No. 1, the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, against the accused-petitioner, Satish Kumar Jhunjhunwalla, and two other persons under Sections 58A(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ' for the sake of convenience), read with Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The averments in the petition of complaint were that it appeared from the return submitted by M/s. Victory Iron Works P. Ltd. under Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, ('the Rules', for short) as on March 31, 1982, filed in the office of the complainant on January 21,1983, that the total amount of deposits of the kinds referred to in Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules was Rs. 1.92 lakhs against the total amount of Rs. 1.31 lakhs, being the aggregate of the paid-up capital and free reserves reduced by the accumulated loss, deferred revenue expenditure, etc., as ar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Burlop Commercial Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: [1988]173ITR522(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The question referred to us in this reference relates to the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is a company. It maintains accounts on the mercantile system. It appears that during the relevant accounting year, the assessee-company on August 14, 1968, entered into an agreement with M/s. India Jute Co. Ltd. for purchasing 2,70,000, yards of D.W. Tarpaulin cloth of specific size, packed in specific manner, deliverable between October, 1968, to June, 1969. Messrs India Jute Co. Ltd. failed to supply the aforesaid goods. The assessee-company sent a bill for damages for non-supply of goods amounting to Rs. 59,194. Messrs India Jute Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim. The assessee-company then filed Suit No. 4117 of 1969 in the Calcutta High Court on December 10, 1969. The suit is still pending. The assessee claimed that this amount of Rs. 59,194 was not assessable as income because it had not been realised in the relevant assessment year nor was there any chance for th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bisra Stone Lime Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Cal)235,[1987]164ITR693(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1971-72, the previous year ending on March 31, 1971. The assessee in its account books of this year made a provision for payment of bonus of Rs. 9,71,327. The employees' union raised a dispute which was, however, settled on October 15, 1971, whereunder, an additional sum of Rs. 3,93,516 was also payable towards bonus. The assessee claimed this additional sum as a deductible allowance. The Income-tax Officer confined the allowance to the original amount of Rs. 9,71,327 for which the assessee had made a provision in its books of account for the assessment year. He repelled the claim for the additional liability on the ground that it was incurred after the expiry of the previous year. This view was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee took the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the contention urged on behalf of the assessee and held that the liability related to the assessm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »