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. Parshva Properties Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Cal)151,[1987]164ITR673(Cal)
Satish Chanbra, C.J. 1. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 13,012 as expenses on the maintenance of its guest house. This claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer who added back the amount as income. This add-back was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved, the assessee took the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 13,012 under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court ' 2. On facts, the position is that the statement made by learned counsel on behalf of the assessee was believed by the Tribunal. It was found that the bungalow was situated at Pipridih which was situated in a remote corner of the district of Rohtas in the State of Bihar. Employe...
Pijush Kanti Datta Vs. Mangilal Gidia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal136
Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff is a practising Barrister of this Court. His wife and his brother-in-law are stated to be the joint owners of the premises No. 4D, Lansdowne Road, Calcutta, where the plaintiff resides with his family in the first floor of the said premises. This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff on 9th August, 1985 for a decree for Rs. 30 lakhs, being the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff by reason of certain alleged defamatory words written by the defendant who is a tenant of the second floor of the said premises since 1st October, 1979.2. The defendant entered appearance but did not file any written statement. This suit has appeared before me as an undefended suit on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Registrar. Original Side.3. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated is as follows:The reservoir on the western side of the said premises is the only source of supply of water to the plaintiff and his family in the first floor and to th...
incheck Tyres Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs for Refund Secti ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC381,1986LC141(Calcutta),1987(27)ELT614(Cal)
C. Mukherjee, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of G.N. Roy, J., discharging the rule obtained by them, the appellant-company has preferred the instant appeal under Clause 5 of the Letters Patent. The appellant-company between November, 1969 and April, 1971 had imported about seven consignments of 'Crys-tex Insoluble Sulphur'. The customs authorities had purported to impose duty upon the said consignments under Item 28 under the Indian Customs Tariff and after paying assessed duties the said consignments had been cleared by the appellant-company.2. The appellant-company had filed appeals in respect of the duties assessed upon two consignments dated November 20 and 21, 1969 inter alia contending the goods in question came under Item No. 28(3) and not Item 28 of Indian Customs Tariff. The Assistant Collector of Customs for refund had rejected the said contention of the appellant. On appeal the Appellate Collector of Customs by his order allowed the said appeal, upheld the contention o...
Jadunath Basak Vs. Mritunjoy Sett and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Cal416,90CWN546
Chakravarty, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Shri S. N. Banerjee, the learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1298 of 1976. 2. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the defendant No. 1 (Jadunath Basak) had no right or authority to run a factory in the suit premises and for permanent and mandatory injunction. 3. It was the case of the plaintiff (Mritunjoy Sett) that he was one of the co-owners of the suit premises No. 43F, Nilmohi Mitra Street, Calcutta, having 3/4th share therein and that defendant No. 2 Kamala Sett, the other co-owner, had l/4th share. The entire first floor of the said premises was in occupation of the plaintiff and the garret at the top was in occupation of the near relation of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in a portion of the ground floor by the defendant No. 2 who occupied the remaining portion of the ground floor. The defendant No 1 &ad; ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhartia Steel Engg. Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR20(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of iron and steel goods. In respect of the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee filed a return disclosing a loss of Rs. 1,25,450. The Income-tax Officer, however, assessed the company on an income of Rs. 2,96,417. After deducting the tax payable thereon, the distributable surplus for the purposes of Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ('the Act'), was worked out at Rs. 1,68,029. The company had not declared any dividend. The Income-tax Officer passed an appropriate order under Section 23A. The assessee went up in appeal and succeeded. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the add-backs made by the Income-tax Officer were on the basis that those claimed deductions were not proved. There was no material to show that the unproved items really pertained to actual concealment of income on the part of the assessee. The assessment under Section 23A was conseq...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohini Thapar Charitable Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Cal)349,[1986]160ITR408(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference relates to the interpreatation of the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The question relates to the assessment year 1955-56, the accounting period for which ended on March 31, 1955. During this accounting period, the assessee, which is a charitable trust, received a sum of Rs. 82,053 from M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd., as commission/ brokerage. It appears that the company had deducted the tax payable on this commission at source. In April, 1956, the assessee-trust filed an application before the Income-tax Officer under Section 48 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the refund of the tax deducted at source. Its plea was that the assessee was a charitable trust not liable to tax. This plea was repelled by the Income-tax Officer, who in view of the C.B.R.'s order No. FN 20/20162-I.T. (AI) dated August 9, 1962, brought this amount of Rs. 82,053 to tax; and after taking ...
Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Cal)237,[1986]159ITR673(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The assessee is a registered company engaged in aluminium industry. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1963-64, the relevant accounting year ending on December 31, 1962.2. The assessee-company erected a factory for manufacturing aluminium in 1960-61. Actual production of aluminium was commenced at the factory on May 14, 1962.3. With a view to run the factory efficiently, the assessee sent 28 of its employees to U.S.A. for practical training and experience in running an aluminium factory. For this purpose the company entered into an agreement with Kaiser of U.S.A., the company which had given to the assessee the know-how, etc., for the factory. It also entered into an agreement with each of the 28 employees who were being sent for practical training to U.S.A. The agreement with the employees, inter alia, provided that after coming back from the United States, they shall work with the company at least for a period of 5 years at the settled remunera...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Sheo Prosad Nopany
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD166(Kol.)
1. The WTO while framing assessment in the case of the assessee, Shri Sheo Prosad Nopany, for the assessment year 1979-80 valued 20,000 unquoted equity shares of Asiatic Wires Ltd. under rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the rules') at Rs. 2,81,200. On appeal, the AAC directed those shares to be valued in accordance with yield method.It may ho mentioned here that according to yield method, the value of those shares comes to nil. The department is, therefore, in appeal.2. Contention of the learned departmental representative is that rule ID is a mandatory provision and, therefore, the learned AAC erred in directing the unquoted shares of Asiatic Wires Ltd. to be valued according to yield method. He in support placed reliance upon Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1979] 119 R 258 (All.) and CWT v. Mamman Varghese [1983] 139 ITR 351 (Ker.). The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contended that the said rule ID is directory and not mandatory. In support he placed relia...
D.P. Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal39,90CWN825
ORDERBhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the validity of the order accepting the quotation/tender submitted by the Respondent 6, Mackintosh Burn Ltd. and the consequential work order, if any, issued in that behalf. The writ petition was moved on 26-9-84 whereupon an ex parte interim order was passed restraining the respondents from giving any effect to or acting on the basis of the purported order accepting the quotation/tender submitted by the Respondent 6 M/s. Mackintosh Burn Ltd., and the consequent work order, if issued, for completion of the remaining construction of 'Banga Bhaban' at No. 3, Hailey Road, New Delhi-1 and from issuing any further order till the disposal of the Rule. Thereafter in terms of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner served copies of the writ application on all the respondents including the respondent 6, M/s. Mackintosh Burn Ltd. But nobody appeared to contest the matter on behalf of the said Respondent 6...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajit Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Cal)250,[1987]165ITR90(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 ending on March 31, 1970, the employer terminated the services of the assessee by giving him the requisite three months' notice. In addition to the pay and salary for the period of notice, the employer paid to the assessee a sum of Rs. 24,933. The question was whether this amount could be treated as profits in lieu of salary within the meaning of Sub-clause (i) of Clause (3) of Section 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The employer had, by its letter dated July 3, 1969, stated that in view of the closure of the business of the company, the assessee would be paid the requisite three months' salary as well as the amount due on account of his leave and in addition, he would be paid an ex gratia sum of Rs. 24,933 which would be subject to income-tax.2. The Tribunal has, on a review of the matters on record, found that this amount was received by the assessee as a capital receipt. It has f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »