Kolkata Court May 1986 Judgments
Pati Durga Cold Storage Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD132(Kol.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31-12-1981 of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') relating to the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from business in running a cold storage. In course of assessment proceedings, it claimed under Section 32A of the Act, investment allowance on a sum of Rs. 7,61,141 being cost of the plant and machinery installed in its cold storage. In the assessment done on 11-5-1981, the ITO allowed the investment allowance as claimed by the assessee.3. Subsequently, the Commissioner scrutinised the records of the assessee and came to hold the view that the investment allowance under Section 32A has been wrongly allowed by the ITO in the assessment.According to the Commissioner, the plant and machinery used by the assessee in its cold storage plant did not qualify for relief under Section 32A. Hence, he started proceedings under Section 263 an...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD294(Kol.)
1. These appeals have been preferred by the department and are opposed by the assessee-company. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Calcutta has erred in holding that the basis of computation of capital base for purposes of surtax assessment should be in proportion ofIndian income Indian operating revenue------------- as against --------------------------World income World operating revenue 3. The appellant is a non-resident shipping company having its head office in Sweden under Section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') the amounts referred to Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-section (2) thereof are to be taxed in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) thereof. For the assessment years under consideration, i.e., 1977-78 to 1979-80 it filed surtax returns disclosing chargeable profits at Rs. 10,04,610, Rs. 7,50,009 and Rs. 8,01,757 respectively and claimed statutory deductions at Rs. 1,47,66,367, Rs. 1,21,87,040 and Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Monoj Kr. Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Lila Jaiswal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal230,90CWN1149
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions so fairly and forcefully made by Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, but we are satisfied that we cannot but decline to intervene in revision initiated by the petitioner-husband against an order of maintenance pendente lite passed against him in favour of his wife and minor child.2. The learned Judge having perfect jurisdiction to grant pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, this is not a case of illegal assumption of jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 115(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge having exercised that jurisdiction and passed order of maintenance, this is also not a case of non-exercise of or failure to exercise jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 115(1)(b) of the Code. And the learned Judge having considered and assessed the materials on record in coming to his finding and not having acted in b...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Hazra Vs. Fulmoni Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal368,1987(1)CHN385,91CWN61
Bhattacharjee, J. 1. A suit for maintenance by a step-mother against her step-son has been decreed by the trial Court and the decree has also been affirmed by the first appellate court on two grounds, namely, (1) that the defendant step-son is liable to maintain his step-mother, the plaintiff, under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and (2) that the defendant is also liable to do so under the express terms of the deed of gift whereby certain properties were transferred to him by his father. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record ourselves we are of opinion that the courts below were wrong in their appreciation of the relevant provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and were wrong in holding that on the materials on record, the defendant step-son, who is the appellant before us, could be held to be liable to maintain the plaintiff step-mother, respondent before us, under the provisions of the afor...
Tag this Judgment!Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas628(Cal),91CWN596
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. Two writ petitions, preferred by the appellants, the Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ',' the Peerless ') and its shareholder-director, Sunil Kanti Roy, which were registered as C.R. No. 9764 (W) of 1979 and C.R. No. 6832(W) of 1980 were dismissed on contest by a learned single judge of this court by an order dated March 14, 1986. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present two appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Though extensively argued, the point involved is a short one and such a point is common to both the appeals. The point is as to whether the business carried on by the appellant company, Peerless, conies within the prohibition of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.2. There is not much dispute with regard to the nature of business carried on by the Peerless. It carries on a long standing business since 1932 in finance and investment. It offers certain schemes for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakil Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1986
Reported in: [1988]172ITR498(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the question that falls for determination is whether interest paid on the additional compensation by the court under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is assessable for the relevant year in which it was awarded or was received by the assessee or such interest dates back to the date of dispossession and assessable from year to year on the basis of accrual.2. The facts of this case are in a narrow compass.3. A property at No. 2, Dum Dum Road, Calcutta, was acquired by the Government of West Bengal under the Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. The Government took possession of the property on December 31, 1962. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1,87,570. The assessee went in appeal to the Land Acquisition Judge who by his order dated July 4, 1970, increased the compensation by Rs. 98,567. He also awarded interest on the enh...
Tag this Judgment!Gift-tax Officer and ors. Vs. Ici (India) P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Cal)83,[1987]164ITR574(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. ICI (India) Pvt. Ltd., the respondent in this appeal, is an Indian company and is assessed to income-tax in India as an ordinary resident.2. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., London (hereafter referred to as 'ICI'), is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and is a non-resident company within the meaning of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At the material time, ICI (India) Pvt. Ltd. was a 100% subsidiary of ICI.3. The facts and proceedings leading up to this appeal are, inter alia, as follows :(i) With the object of manufacture in India of diverse products, ICI, in 1937, promoted a company in India named Alkali & Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'ACCI'), for the manufacture of caustic soda and chlorine products. (ii) After the last World War, ICI decided further to make substantial investments in India for the manufacture of an extended range of products which were previously imported. Accordingly, the existing company,...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkesh Engineering Works and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commer ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC37(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, Dwarkesh Engineering Works, is a partnership firm and its business is manufacture and sale of steel castings. The petitioner No. 2 isone of its partners. The workshop of the petitioner is situated at Madhyamgram, 24-Parganas, West Bengal.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1986. The petitioner claims that its manufacturing unit is 'a newly set up small-scale industry' and as such, the sale of goods produced by this unit is entitled to be deducted from its gross turnover by virtue of Rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. Rule 3(66a) provides :3. In calculating his taxable turnover a dealer liable to pay tax under Section 4 or 8(3) of the Act may deduct from his gross turnover, his turnover on the following, namely :-...(66a) (i) Sales by a newly set up small-scale industry of goods or class of goods, other than those included in Schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Kumar Pal Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal16
ORDERPrabir Kumar Majumdar, J. 1. The petitioners are trustees of Jagannath Roy Family Benefit Trust and the petitioner i is the Managing Trustee of the said Trust.2. On or about July 16, 1935 a deed of lease for a period of 61 years in respect of a premises No. 2/2/1B, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta subsequently renumbered as No. 135A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta was executed by and between S.C. Mitra, the lessor and Babulal Chaukhani, the lessee. The said lease is due to expire on Aug. 10, 1995 without any right of option for renewal of the said lease.3. The lessor in the said lease S.C. Mitra transferred the said demised property to Jagannath Roy by a registered deed of sale on Apr. 26, 1939. By reason of such transfer, all right, title and interest in the said demised property stood transferred to and vested in the transferee the said Jagannath Roy. The name of the transferee was duly mutated in place of the transferor in the records of the Corporation of Calcutta. Thus the said l...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Balai Chandra Kundu and anr. Vs. Radharani De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Cal396
ORDERMonaranjan Mullick, J. 1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners who are defendants in theTitle Suit No. 223 of 1976 pending in the Court of Munsif, 2nd Court at Burdwan against an order No. 16 dated 11-10-1982 of the Ld. Munsif accepting the report of the Local Investigation Commissioner and overruling the objection submitted by the present petitioners against the said report.2. The facts are briefly as follows : --3. One Sri Harekrishna Dey now deceased filed a Title Suit No. 223 of 1976 in the Court of the 2nd Munsif at Burdwan against the petitioners and others for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the petitioners claiming title and possession in the suit property and alleging that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 are the owners of C. S. Plot No. 1371 exercising the title and possession therein but in R. S. records of rights. 27 Cent of land in plot No. 1371 has been wrongly recorded in Plot...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »