Kolkata Court June 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.
Rabindra Nath De Sarkar Vs. Nitai Ch. Adak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ9
ORDERLilamoy Ghosh, J.1. Two short points have been raised on behalf of the petitioner in this revisional application. The first point is that the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore, should not have revised the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghatal, as that was an interlocutory order. The second point urged has been that in any event the learned Sessions Judge's finding is wrong and illegal.2. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Chittaranjan Das, the learned Advocate has appeared and has raised the points above mentioned.3. Mrs. Dipti Mitra, the learned Advocate appearing for the State has supported the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.4. None appeared for the second parties O. P.5. On hearing both the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State, I am of the view that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is unsustainable. By order dt. 12-3-81, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghatal, attached the disputed plot and the O...
Everett (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: 1988LC415(Calcutta),1988(17)LC777(Calcutta),1993(67)ELT462(Cal)
ORDERSudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. The instant writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, dated March 31, 1981, imposing a penalty of Rs. 18,450/- upon the petitioner under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged short-landing of one box, containing polyester plain suiting, imported from Korea for transit to Nepal.2. The petitioner is a company and carries on business as Steamer Agents for the Port of Calcutta for the sea going vessel 'M.V. Makeverett', owned by Everett Orient Line Inc. of Liberia which arrived at the Port of Calcutta on December 13, 1977.3. Among the cargo carried by the said vessel to the Port of Calcutta, there was a consignment of 78 wooden boxes said to have contained 38693 yards of 100% polyester plain suiting shipped on board the vessel at the Port of Busan, Korea for discharge at the Port of Calcutta in transit to Nepal.4. In the penalty proceeding started against the petitioner...
Sagora Bibi Vs. Sk. Manik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal86,(1987)1CompLJ322(Cal),91CWN163
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. If aparty to a suit transfers his interest in the subject-matter of the suit to one and that one in his turn transfers the same to another, can that other, i.e. the second transferee get himself substituted in place of the party toproceed with the suit where the first transferee was not brought on record This is the short question that has arisen for our consideration in this revision and we have no doubt that the question cannot but be answered in the affirmative. It is true that even after transfer of interest of a party to the suit in the subject-matter of the suit, the suit may still effecfively proceed with the transferor as the party without the transferee being brought on record because of the doctrine of lis pendens. But, as pointed out by Vivian Bose. J., in the decision of the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, : [1955]2SCR1 , 'our laws of procedure are grounded on principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be co...
Tarapada Dey Vs. District Registrar, Hooghly and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal107,91CWN262
Bhattacharjee, J.1. An award made on 28-11-77 was presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar on 25-11-83 and was admitted to registration on the same day. Could that be done after such a long lapse of time? That is the question that has come up for our consideration in this case arising out of a petition filed under Article 227.2. Under Section 23 of the Registration Act, an award, like any other non-testamentary instrument, is to be presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar within 4 months from the date of its execution. If, however, owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, an award or other non-testamentary instrument is not presented for registration within 4 months of its execution, the Registrar, but not the Sub-Registrar, may direct that such document shall be accepted for registration on payment of fine provided the delay in presentation beyond the period of 4 months as aforesaid, does not exceed 4 months more. In other words, while ordinarily the period...
In Re: No. 57 Block Bastuhara Committee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal122,91CWN337
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. This petition is heard as a contested application upon notice to the respondents and is also disposed of after hearing the respective parties without issuing a Rule.2. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 45 have stated in the writ petition that they are citizens of India and all of them are residing at No. 5, Mathur Babu Lane within police station Entally in the city of Calcutta. Petitioner No. 1 is No. 57 Block Basthura Committee which is an association of members who are hut dwellers along the banks of both sides of new canal of Kulti Canal which is locally known as Pachakhal. It has been stated that the banks of both sides of the said canal where the petitioners are residing as hut dwellers are included within Ward No. 57 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The petitioners have stated that the said new canal starts at Palmer Bazar Pumping Station owned and maintained by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the said canal comes up to Kulti beyond the municipal limit of Cal...
H.S. Mukherjee Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Cal)150,[1986]161ITR846(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. In the assessment year 1966-67, the accounting year ending on March 31, 1966, the assets of the firm, Nirsa Refractory & Ceramic Works, Calcutta, were transferred to a limited company, viz., Nirsa Refractory & Ceramic Works Private Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.3 lakhs. Rupees 1,60,000 of the consideration was allocated towards plant, machinery, electric motors, etc., and the balance Rs. 1,40,000 was allocated towards consideration for a leasehold land belonging to the firm. Capital gains arising as a result of the transfer of the properties apart from the land was included in the income of the firm in its income-tax assessment in the said assessment year and was taxed. Thereafter, the capital gain which was determined to be Rs. 1,31,676 was allocated between the two partners.2. In the income-tax assessment of H.S. Mukherjee, one of the partners and the assessee, the Income-tax Officer included half of the saidcapital gains and levied tax on the same under Secti...
Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Cal)139,[1986]161ITR820(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Alkali & Chemical Corporation of India Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, in the assessment year 1971-72, the accounting year ending on September 30, 1970.2. On an application of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred, as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, for the opinion of this court:'Question No. 1.--Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was right in upholding the allowance of interest paid by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1,63,386? Question No 2.--Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of the assessee's claim of Rs. 18,653 for depreciation ?' 3. On an application of the Revenue also under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagpur Steel and Alloys (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Cal)145,[1988]169ITR466(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 as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, limiting the time within which loss should be declared, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss even though the loss return was not filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(3) as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was admissible in law as such for the entire year and should not be calculated proportionately with reference to the period for which the undertaking was in operation during the year ?' 2. The controversy r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thomas Leslie Martin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR814(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. On an application of the Revenue under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal as directed has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court :' Assessment year 1959-60 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,617 on account of interest paid by the assessee on the overdrafts taken by him fell within the purview of Section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was, therefore, allowable as a deduction Assessment year 1960-61 : 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,246 on account of interest paid by the assessee on the overdraft taken by him fell within the purview of Section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was, therefore, allowable as a deduction ?' 2. As noted above, the assessment years involved are 1959-60 and 1960-61, ...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Black Diamond Beverages Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD551(Kol.)
1. The assessee is a company which is engaged in the manufacture of soft drinks. Prior to the assessment year 1979-80 it produced soft drinks under the brand names of Limca and Gold Spot. During the assessment year 1979-80, i.e., from 15-2-1978 it started manufacture of a new soft drink under the brand name of Thums Up and for marketing the new product it incurred advertisement and publicity expenses of Rs.2,23,208. The assessee contended before the IAC that no part of the advertisement and publicity expenditure incurred by it could be disallowed under Section 37(3A) in view of the provisions contained in Section 37(3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The IAG rejected the said contention by observing, inter alia, that no separate industrial undertaking had been set up by the assessee for the production of Thums Up as "the same industrial undertaking which was producing and continues to produce the other brand of beverage, namely, Gold Spot and Limca produces this brand Thums ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »