Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ828Cal
ORDERU.C. Banerjee, J.1. The question involved in this interlocutory application is whether a workman in whose favour an award has been passed by a Labour Tribunal and the employer challenging the Award moved the High Court or the Supreme Court, the concerned workman is entitled to get wages last drawn as provided under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. On 3rd of September 1980, the service of the respondent No. 4 being the concerned workman was terminated by the petitioner on a domestic enquiry being held. As against the order of termination, an order of Reference was made by the State Government on 1st of October 1982 on the issue whether the dismissal of the concerned workman was justified or not. The tribunal by an award dated 23rd August, 1984 held that the order of dismissal was unjustified and also came to the conclusion that the workman was entitled to reinstatement in service with full pay and back wages.3. This award of the tribunal was challenged by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]164ITR48(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts on record found or admitted in the above references under Sections 64(1) and 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, are, inter alia, that one Nundalal Roy, since deceased, executed a deed of settlement on September 12, 1929, whereby he created a trust in respect of various movable and immovable properties mentioned in the deed. The properties were conveyed to himself and his wife, Sharnran-gini Roy Chowdhurani, for the use of himself for and during the term of his natural life and his wife, Shyamrangini Roy Chowdhurani. It was further provided that after the death of the settlor, the surviving trustee, Shyamrangini Roy Chowdhurani, would stand possessed of the said properties upon the trusts mentioned in the said deed subject to the powers and provisions contained therein, as follows :(a) The surviving trustee would pay out of the rents, issues and profits of the immovable properties and out of the income of the existing investments after meeting all outgoi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]164ITR204(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of two partners--Sri Hemant Dhirajlal Kanakia and Smt. Sonal Ashok Kanakia. The petitioner became the owner of premises No. 9, Pollock Street, Calcutta, which is a partly one-storeyed and partly two-storeyed building, on October 7, 1983, under the circumstances mentioned hereafter. The said premises was initially purchased in the year 1947 by one Sri Jatindra Kumar Doss and Smt. Tarangini Bala Dassi. Smt. Taran-gini Bala Dassi died on March 12, 1969, leaving her husband the said Sri Jatindra Kumar Doss, as her sole heir and legal representative. On or about July 11, 1969, Mercantile Bank Limited instituted a suit against the said Sri Jatindra Kumar Doss in this court in its original side being Suit No. 1883 of 1969, inter alia, for a decree for Rs. 2,09,004.39, interim interest and interest on judgment and for various other reliefs mentioned in the plaint filed therein. During the pendency of the said suit, Sri ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1987(13)ECC193,1986LC704(Calcutta),1986(26)ELT298(Cal)
A.K. Sengupta, J.1. The petitioner, a Partnership firm, carries on business of manufacture of vegetable non-essential oils falling under Tariff Item No. 12 of the Central Excise Tariffs, at its factory with the Solvent Extraction Plant situated at the suburbs of Calcutta. The petitioner is required to pay duty on the manufactured product under Tariff Item No. 12. The petitioner also manufactures acid oil by treating soap stock obtained in the process of refining vegetable non-essential oils and obtains spent earth which are only by-products resulting from the products of oil mill and solvent extraction plant. According to the petitioner the said byproducts are exempt under Tariff Item No. 68 for which no clearance was required to be obtained under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and no duty was required to be paid therefor.2. By a letter bearing No. IR 326 dated 26th June, 1977, the Superintendent, Central Excise, AR-III, Calcutta-Ill Division, the respondent No. 3 herein, intimat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1987(32)ELT388(Cal)
A.K. Sengupta, J.1. The Petitioner, a partnership firm, carries on business of manufacture of vegetable non-essential oils falling under tariff item No. 12 of the Central Excise Tariff at its factory with the solvent extraction plant situated at the suburbs of Calcutta. The petitioner is required to pay duty on the manufactured product under Tariff Item No. 12. The petitioner also manufactures acid oil by treating soap stock obtained in the process of refining vegetable non-essential oils and obtains spent earth which are only by-products resulting from the products of oil mill and solvent extraction plant. According to the petitioner the said byproducts are exempt under Tariff Item No. 68 for which no clearance was required to be obtained under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and no duty was required to be paid therefor.2. By a letter bearing No. IR 326, dated 26th June, 1977, the Superintendent, Central Excise, AR-III, Calcutta-III Division, the respondent No. 3 herein, intima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1987Cal276,91CWN254,1987(14)ECC186
ORDERShyamal Kumar Sen, J. 1. This is an application by the Shipping Corporation of India Limited, the defendant in the above suit for an order that the above suit be dismissed. 2. It is the ease of the petitioner that it appears from the plaint that the cause of action of the plaintiff is based on non-delivery and/or short landing of 28 pieces of tin-ingots stated to have been curried by the vessel, M. V. Vishava Madhuri (hereinafter called as the said vessel) under the Bill of Lading No. S/CAL/5 dt. Jan. 7, 1984. According to the plaintiff, the said vessel arrived at the Fort of Calcutta on Jan. 27, 1984 and that a Steamer Survey was conducted on Feb. 3, 1984 and upon such survey a quantity of 28 pieces of tin-ingots was found short. 3. It is the further case in the plaint that the Calcutta Port Trust has issued a short landing certificate in the prescribed form on May 7, 1984 certifying that the 28 pieces of tin-ingots were short landed. 4. The said vessel on that particular voyage ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)66CTR(Cal)115,[1988]169ITR201(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63, an interesting question of law arises as to whether the Income-tax Officer, not having completed the assessment within the normal period of limitation of four years prescribed by the Act can, by applying the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.2. A statement of case was filed by the Tribunal referring the following questions of law for determination by this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) were attracted and as such justified in applying the provisions of Section 153(1)(b) of the Income-tax , Act, 1961, and in holding that the assessment was not time-barred ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly in view of the fact that the assessee m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)59CTR(Cal)78,[1987]164ITR28(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,80,446, being the value of iron rods supplied by M/s. Machine Techno Sales (Private) Limited, during the previous year ended on March 31, 1965, amounted to dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and 50% thereof, as reduced by the balance at his credit in the current account maintained with the company, was assessable in the hands of the assessee as such dividend for the assessment year 1966-67?'2. The facts leading to this reference are stated hereafter.3. The assessee is an individual. He is the managing director of M/s. Machine Techno Sales (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The other director of the said company is the assessee's wife. The assessment year involved is 1966-67 and the relevant a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1987(11)ECC191,1987(10)LC172(Calcutta),1986(25)ELT939(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has asked for a direction on the respondents for refund of duties stated to have been collected illegally from the petitioner. The petitioner carries on business of processing, inter-alia, of Teleprinter paper rolls and tapes at No. 48 Canal East Road, Calcutta. The said goods are processed from duty paid printing and writing paper by cutting, slitting and inter-leaving with duty paid carbon paper for I.B.M. machine, adding Machine etc. The said printing and writing paper falls under Item No. 17 (1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). According to the petitioner, the processing of the said goods by cutting, slitting and inter-leaving with carbon paper is not manufacture. The petitioner obtained a Central Excise Licence and used to pay duty on the said goods processed by it under Item No. 17 (1) of the First S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]165ITR646(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the corresponding accounting years ending on the 30th June of the calendar years 1969 and 1970.2. In both the said assessment years, the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, had included in its income and had shown in its returns a sum of Rs. 6,27,433 receivable by way of interest from Chandpur & Co., one of its debtors. This amount was brought to tax as part of the total income of the assessee.3. For the assessment year 1970-71, it was held by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee had failed to file the return within time and an order was passed levying penal interest under Sections 139, 215, 216 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act'), as might be attracted.4. In the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee had sold old machinery for a consideration of Rs. 1,34,246. The Income-tax Officer recorded that the cost or the w...
Tag this Judgment!