Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)ILLJ41Cal
Mookerjee, J.1. By the order complained of in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Labour Department acting as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has rejected the prayer of the appellant, who is the petitioner before us for condonation of delay in filing its appeal under Section 7(7) of the said Act and has also dismissed the said appeal as time, barred. The Appellate Authority has not thereby committed any error jurisdiction and therefore we are unable to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with the said decision of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.2. Manindra Kishore Chakraborty, the opposite party No. 3 in the Revisional Application, was a Lecturer of Philosophy in the City College. On 13th May, 1974 he had finally retired at the end of extended period of his service. On 15th June, 1981 he had purported to make an application under Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]168ITR75(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The estate of Kamala Devi Fatehpuria, deceased, was assessed to estate duty under Section 58(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, on January 29, 1970. The accountable person was permitted to pay the duty assessed in monthly instalments by an order dated March 30, 1970.2. The accountable person, however, failed to pay the instalments in terms of the said order dated March 30, 1970. He did not pay any instalment for the month of April, 1970, and thereafter since August, 1970, stopped paying further instalments.3. By a letter dated December 5, 1970, the estate duty authority called upon the accountable person to appear on December 22, 1970, to discuss the matter and subsequently a notice dated December 30, 1970, was issued against the accountable person directing him to explain in writing by January 16, 1971, why the scheme of instalment as granted should not be treated as cancelled for default and why penalty should not be imposed for non-payment of the duty.4. The acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Cal)316,[1986]162ITR725(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The Gramophone Co. of India Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, the relevant accounting years ending on the 30th Jane of the calendar years 1968 to 1971. In the assessments for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer allowed deduction under Section 80O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without proportionate deduction in the computation of the capital. In the said assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer, in computing the capital of the assessee, allowed the inclusion of the reserve for doubtful debts and advances and for the said assessment year 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer also included an amount under the head 'Tax equalisation reserve '.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III, by his letter dated 31st May/1st June, 1974, informed the assessee that he proposed to revise the assessments of surtax for the said assessment years 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1989(24)LC97(Calcutta),1988(34)ELT423(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. In this writ petition, M/s. Bharat Ware Housing Corporation, and others have challenged a show cause notice dated 19th July 1984 and also a circular dated 31st January 1984 by which it is alleged that the petitioners' licence Nos. 145/83 and 146/83 respectively were sought to be cancelled. The show cause notice has not been annexed to the petition. It has been stated by the petitioners that a copy of the circular was never furnished to the petitioners by the Customs Authority.2. The reasons for the proposal of the cancellation of the licences are not very clear. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Customs Authority, to say the least, is most unsatisfactory and contain many generalities which are not applicable to the petitioners and why an affidavit of this sort has been filed, is not clear. However, from paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition, it clearly appears that the licences granted to the petitioners have now expired. Therefore, there is no question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 90CWN739,[1986]162ITR231(Cal)
M.G. Mukherji, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the Revenue. 2. The questions of law that have been referred are as follows : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sri Shyamal Bikash Sett was entitled to prefer an appeal against the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty before the Appellate Controller under Section 62 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 If the answer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative then : 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal filed by Shyamal Bikash Sett before the Appellate Controller without its being accompanied by a certified copy of the assessment order or the demand notice, was proper ' 3. One Sushil Kumar Sett died on September 20, 1964. An assessment under the Estate Duty Act was made on March 31, 1969. This was pursuant to a statement of account o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)54CTR(Cal)178,[1986]159ITR167(Cal)
P.K. Mukharji, J. 1. The order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes refusing to accord ' approval', under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated January 4, 1977, has been impugned in the present writ petition by the petitioner company, M/s. Simon Carves (India) Limited.2. In communicating the said impugned order, the Under Secretary to the Central Board of Direct Taxes has referred to the petitioner's letter dated September 26, 1975, which was the application for grant of ' approval' under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The impugned order which is set out at annexure ' K ' to the writ petition, inter alia, runs as follows :' The Board regret their inability to accord approval under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the above-mentioned agreement, inter alia, for the reason that the loaning of the services of engineers and draughtsmen for service abroad is not a technical service as contemplated under Section 80-O of the Act. '4. Thus, it will appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]67STC87(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. On 13th September, 1976, the petitioner applied for registration under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as a reseller. From records it appears that the petitioner appended a list of 20 items which the petitioner claimed to be reseller of. These items included cast steel components, bearings, bushings and valves, EMU coach fittings, train lighting and head lighting components. I am mentioning the above items only to show the diversity of the goods the petitioner claims to be reseller of. There was an inspection on the application made by the petitioner. The report of the local enquiry was to the effect 'the dealer is a reseller'. This report was dated 16th October, 1976.2. Ultimately, on 8th December, 1976, an order was passed in which the petitioner was granted registration as a manufacturer of roller path. In the order sheet dated 8th December, 1976, which was handed up to the court and the copy of which has also been annexed to the petition, there doe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1986Cal356
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on the 3rd Dec. 1985 by the Trial Court in an application for interlocutory order filed by the plaintiff-appellant herein. On or about 19th Nov. 1985 the suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants respondents praying for the following reliefs :--(a) Decree for Rs. 9,25,020.80P. against the defendants 1 and 2. (b) Interim interest and interest on judgment; (c) Alternatively, an enquiry into the loss and damages suffered by the plaintiff and a decree for such sum as may be found due upon such enquiry; (d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant 3 from invoking and/or receiving any payment under the Letters of Indemnity/Guarantee dated 26th June, 1985 given by the defendant No. 4. (e) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 4 from making any payment and/or disbursing any money to the defendant 3 under the Letters of Indemnity/Guarantee dt. 26th June, 1985; (f) Such other injunction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas775(Cal)
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated December 16, 1983, passed by a learned single judge of this court on an application made by the respondent, Asok Kumar Saha, under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, for rectification of the share register of respondent No. 1, Nuddea Tea Co. Ltd. By the said judgment and order, the court of the first instance allowed the said application.2. On or about August 1, 1979, the respondent, Asok Kumar Saha, purchased 100 fully paid-up equity shares of Rs. 100 each of the appellant, Nuddea Tea Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), through a broker in the stock market. At the time of purchase of the aforesaid 100 equity shares by the respondent, they stood in the register of the company in the joint names of the following persons :(1) Late Jadu Nath Sarkar, (2) Late Bijoy Nath Sarkar, (3) Late Anadi Nath Sarkar, (4) Late Birendra Nath Sarkar, (5) Late Akhil Nath Sarkar, (6) Late Sasi Sekhar Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]166ITR405(Cal)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessment year in question is 1972-73, the accounting period ending on January 1, 1972. During the course of the accounting period, the West Bengal Payment of Gratuity Act came into force in the year 1971, under which the assessee was liable to make payment of gratuity to its employees for the past years and also make provision for payment of gratuity to its employees. It provided for a sum of Rs. 65,86,985 as its liability for this assessment year. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 47,83,701 and disallowed the claim for the balance of Rs. 18,03,284. The disallowed amount was referable to the past services of the current employees of the assessee-company.2. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed the finding of the Income-tax Officer and allowed the claim, in view of the decisions of this High Court as well as of the Tribunal in other cases. The Tribunal upheld this view.3. At the instance of the Department, the T...
Tag this Judgment!