Kolkata Court March 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. Calcutta Discount Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR680(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. Calcutta Discount Co. Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, was incorporated on November 26, 1917. At its incorporation, all the shares of the assessee were held by Sir David Yule, who died on July 3, 1928, and after his death the shares of the assessee came to be held by atrust estate. At the material time, the assessee had invested largely in Indian shares and had made loans and advances to a number of limited companies consisting of, and under the control of, the Yule group of companies.2. The administration of the estate of Sir David Yule was completed by 1934 and in a letter dated January 19, 1934, from Yule Catto & Co. Ltd. to M/s. Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., it was recorded that the assessee should carry on business as an investment company.3. In 1934, the successors of Sir David Yule floated another company by the name 'Meryl Investment Co. Ltd.', a sterling company to which all the shares of the asseseee, which were being held by the trust estate were transferred. Meryl ...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD397(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the department and the two cross-objections filed by the assessee are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. We first take up the appeal filed by the department which is directed against the order dated 22-3-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1976-77, the previous year of which ended on 31-12-1975.3. The assessee is a non-resident company doing banking business in India. Its head office is in England and it is doing similar business in some other countries also.4. The first ground taken by the department in this appeal states that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of the interest of Rs. 44,55,972 made by the ITO. During the year under consideration, the assessee considered certain debts due to it as of doubtful recovery. Nevertheless, he charged interest on those debts and debited those amounts to the personal accounts of the debtors. However, the corresponding c...
Preeti Singha Roy Vs. Calcutta Tramways Co. (1978) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Cal305
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. The equitable remedy by way of an injunction whether mandatory or interlocutory in nature, is discretionary in nature and is never granted as a matter of course. Lord Diplock's speech in the American Cyanamid's case (American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) 1 All ER 504) lays down certain guidelines for the grant of interlocutory injunctions. According to these guidelines the plaintiff must first satisfy the Court that there is a serious issue to decide and that if the defendants were not restrained and the plaintiff won the action, damages at common law would be inadequate compensation for the plaintiffs loss. Once satisfied of these matters, the Court will then consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction or not, that is, whether justice would be best served by an order of injunction. The great value of the Cyanamid case lies in its treatment of interlocutory injunctions as an aid to doing justice in the litiga...
Gokul Chandra Seal Vs. Atlas and Union Jute Press Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Cal393,90CWN873
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Thefacts in the suit for partition, recovery of possession and mesne profits, which has given rise to these two appeals, are long and complicated. But the question involved in these two appeals arising from the decree of mesne profits passed in the suit is a short one and does not necessitate the narration of those facts.2. As is obvious from the definition of 'mesne profits' in Section 2(12) of the Civil P. C. and also the provisions relating thereto in Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code, a decree for mesne profits can be passed for the profits which the person in wrongful possession actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received together with interest thereon. The liability to pay mesne profits would, therefore, be obviously confined to the period during which the person to be charged therefor was in wrongful possession. The moment the possession ceases, whether by delivery of possession or by relinquishment, the liability to pay mesne profits al...
S.S. Sanyal and anr. Vs. K.V.R. Nair and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ2074
ORDERS.S. Ganguly, J.1. By this application the accused petitioners want the quashing of the proceeding being case No. C/991/83 under Sections 500 and 506 of the Penal Code pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta. The facts leading to the present revisional application may be summarised as follows :-2. The present petitioners together with 7 others are President and other persons in-charge of India Foils Ltd. The Opposite party complainant is the Vice-President of India Foils Staff Association. Admittedly the Association was in exclusive possession of a room in the Company's office at 4, Mango Lane with a steel cup-board in it. The Association was asked to handover the possession of this room together with the steel cup-board on or about 4/2/1983. On 5/2/83 in the presence of three representatives. from the side of the Company (accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8), the contents of the steel cup-board were being removed when the presence of certain duplicate copies a...
Bank of China Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD26(Kol.)
1. The assessee has preferred appeal which is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which part of the claim of the assessee was not accepted.2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the appeal has been marked as time barred by 79 days. There is an indication that only 12 days related to obtaining of certified copy of the order appealed against.The assessee at ground No. 7 of the additional grounds of appeal submits that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned in view of the fact that the official liquidator functions under severe strains and it is not the case of an ordinary assessee. It is submitted that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for disposal on merits. In the paper book the assessee has also filed copy of the appellate order in the case of Sree Radhakrishna Cotton Mills Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1678 (Cal.) of 1980] in which penalty was imposed under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the assessmen...
Smt. Lila Ghosh Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD213(Kol.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24-1-1984 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1980-81, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1980.2. The assessee inherited a property which was under lease, on the death of her husband in 1960. That lease expired in 1970. However, the lessee did not give possession to the assessee. The assessee filed a suit for eviction and mesne profit. The suit was decreed in favour of the assessee on 11-8-1971. The decree was affirmed on 19-5-1979 by the Additional District Judge, by the Calcutta High Court on 6-5-1976 and by the Supreme Court on 19-9-1977. The assessee then applied for the execution of the decree. The Court appointed a Commissioner to determine the claim of quantum of mesne profit. While the execution of the said decree and the determination of the quantum of mesne profit were pending, the Government of West Bengal acquired the demised property on 24-12-1979. A settlement was arrive...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Model Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: [1989]175ITR374(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. On the application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal as questions of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the services rendered by the assessee in providing electricity, use of lifts, supply of water, maintenance of staircase and watch and ward facilities to the tenants constituted separate activities distinct from the letting out of the property and were not incidental to such letting out ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the service charges realised were not part and parcel of the income derivedfrom house property assessable under Section 22 of the Income tax Act, 1961, and that they were assessable under the head 'Income from other sources'? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramzo Colma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: [1988]172ITR451(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. On an application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal as questions of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement dated August 31, 1966, between M/s. Monte Catini Edison, S.P.A., Italy, and the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee served in India not as an employee of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., but in the capacity of an employee of M/s. Monte Catini Edison, S.P.A. ?2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding not to gross up the salaries on tax on tax basis for the purpose of inclusion of the tax as perquisite in the hands of the assessee ?'3....
Calcutta Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT502(Cal)
S.S. Ganguly, J.1. On prosecution allegation that on 9-5-74 the two accused- the first one being M/s. Calcutta Jute . and the second the Manager thereof-had removed 20 bales of Hessian without debiting the duty in the Personal Ledger Account but under cover of gate pass Nos. 375 and 376 and further that (2) on 5-5-1974 and 7-5-1974 they had manufactured 81 bales of jute manufactures and had stored the same in the factory without accountal in the statutory Books and Accounts and had thereby violated Central Excise Rules 9(1), 173(f), 173G (1) and 173G(2) read with Rule 52, 173G(4) read with Rule 53 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 thus committing the offences punishable under Sections 9, 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, a charge was drawn up against both the accused accordingly. Both the accused having pleaded guilty to the said charge, the learned S.D.J.M., Alipore convicted them under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »