Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1987Cal324
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Estate Manager, Estate Directorate, Housing Department, Government of West Bengal, the Care-Taker-Cum-Collector, M.I.G. Housing Estate, B. V. College Compound, Calcutta and the State of West Bengal, represented by the Secretary, Housing Department.2. It appears that the respondent, Lt. Col. Sudhir Mohan Dutta, was allotted a flat being flat No. 1/5 in the M.I.G. Housing Estate at 37, Belgachia Road, Calcutta by the Estate Manager, Estate Directorate, Housing Department in April, 1965 and the said respondent thereafter took possession of the flat by executing an agreement as required to be executed for such purpose. It is the case of the appellants that the Estate Supervisor of the Estate Directorate made certain enquiries on 15th September, 1980 and 3rd March, 1983 and from such enquiry it was revealed that the petitioner had built a house in the name of his wife, Sm. Madhuri Dutta at Block-AA-38, Salt Lake City, Calcutta and the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Cal)98,[1987]167ITR387(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. It appears that the paper book prepared in this reference by the Revenue is incomplete. The order of the Income-tax Officer and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal from the order of the Income-tax Officer in the proceedings under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of which questions have been directed to be referred by this court have not been included in the paper book. It also appears that the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as also the order of this court passed under Section 256(2) of the Act directing the Tribunal to refer the questions are also not included. 2. In spite of the aforesaid, learned advocate for the Revenue and Mr. R.N. Dutt, learned advocate, who was appointed by us as amicus curiae, as no one was appearing for the assessee, submitted that the question can be answered on the basis of the order of the Tribunal where the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1987Cal126
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J. 1. The petitioner has taken out this application for setting aside the award , dt. 6th Mar., 1985 on several grounds set out in para 20 of the petition. The award is for Rs. 5,50,000/- in favour of the respondent and is a non-speaking award.2. The main claim of the respondent was for idle labour. It was alleged that Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the respondent by way of advance to the labourers but no work could be done as the land was not made available to the respondent by the petitioner for filling up the same with good earth. To obtain possession of these lands, the petitioner was to pay compensation to the owners of, the land and to hand over the same to the respondent but the petitioner had failed and neglected to pay the owners for which no work could be proceeded with. Another claim was for Rs. 1,00,000/- for labourers sitting idle from 19th Jan., 1983 due to the fact that the petitioner failed to finalise payment with the bargadars and local plot holde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1988]169ITR239(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Smt. Panna Jalan, the assessee, was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70. The assessee claimed before the Wealth-tax Officer that her entire jewellery valued at over Rs. 5 lakhs was exempt from wealth-tax under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The Wealth-tax Officer held that a part of the jewellery of the assessee of the value of Rs. 22,000 was not intended for her personal use and, therefore, was not entitled to exemption as claimed. In respect of the balance of the jewellery, the assessee's claim for exemption was accepted'. The assessments were completed accordingly.2. Appeals were filed against the assessment order by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter before the Tribunal on other issues. The said appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was decided on February 4, 1971, and the appeal before the Tribunal was decided on March 22, 1973.3. In the meantime, Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1987CriLJ477
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal dt. 30-3-84 passed by Sri M. M. Ghosh, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, in case No. C 292 of 1981/T Under Section 323, Penal Code, acquitting the accused respondents Under Section 256, Cr.P.C. The facts briefly are as follows:2. The complainant filed a petition of complaint against the accused respondents Under Section 323, Penal Code. The process was issued against the accused respondents and at examination of the accused respondents Under Section 251, Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, the trial proceeded. The evidence of all the witnesses were examined and after examination of the accused respondents Under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate fixed 30-3-84 for hearing argument. On that date the complainant remained absent, and on repeated calls took no steps. As all the accused persons were present, the learned Magistrate found from the conduct of the complainant that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1988]172ITR333(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. On an application of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal as directed has referred the following question as a question of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, cash allowance for lunch, club entrance fee paid to the employees and expenses for repairing the flats occupied by the employees of the assessee did not fall within the expression ' benefit, amenity or perquisite ' within the meaning of Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in directing accordingly the allowance of Rs. 79,362 which had been disallowed by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The controversy raised in the question is covered by several decisions of this court which are as follows :(a) CIT v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. : [1979]119ITR431(Cal) , (b) CITv. Tecalemit (Hind] Ltd. : [1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)19ITD231(Kol.)
1. This appeal is by the revenue by which it is contended that the Appellate Controller erred in holding that the goodwill in the concerns was to be computed on the basis of the net annual average commercial profit as against average commercial profit taken in the assessment and that too after allowing deduction of 18 per cent return on average capital employed and 25 per cent of profit for managerial remuneration out of the average annual business profit.2. It is also the appeal by the revenue that in the circumstances of the case in the alternative, the Appellate Controller erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 83,716, Rs. 11,276 and Rs. 6,326 in respect of the goodwill of the different three firms, whereas the correct amounts of the assessee's share were Rs. 65,598, Rs. 824 and Rs. 2,148.3. In the assessment order, the Assistant Controller noted that the deceased died intestate on 19-4-1969. He was survived by his only son, Shri Ghanshyamdas Binani who filed the return of the estate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1987Cal97,91CWN441
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 861 of 1974 affirming those passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 345 of 1971.2. The defendants are appellants in the instant appeal.3. The aforesaid Title Suit No. 345 of 1971 was instituted by the plaintiffs respondents inter alia for declaration of the plaintiffs' right of way or passage over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from causing any obstruction by raising walls or constructions and also for mandatory injunction directing the said defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to demolish 21/2 ft. to 3 ft. high construction on the northern mouth of the disputed passage and to remove the rubbish, garbage and brickbats from the passage.4. The case of the plaintiffs respondents was inter alia that the premises Nos. 13, 14 and 15 Girish Chandra Basu Road within Police S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]166ITR341(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The material facts and proceedings leading up to the above references are, inter alia, that Messrs Hoare Miller & Co.Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, is a company. The assessee is a leading exporter of jute products. In its business, the assessee at the material time used to issue firm offers by cables to its foreign customers for supply of jute products by way of exports. These offers were kept open for 24 to 72 hours and on receipt of the acceptance by the foreign customers, the assessee exported the jute products.2. Against the offers made to its foreign customers, the assessee used to enter into purchase agreements with local suppliers in order to guard itself against future price fluctuations in the jute market. In most of the cases, the assessee used to enter into a purchase transaction locally against each export offer abroad.3. The firm offers issued by the assessee to its foreign customers abroad were accepted in or about 80% of cases and the balance of abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1987Cal197,[1988]64CompCas730(Cal)
1. The respondents are not appearing to contest this appeal though they have been intimated that the appeal itself would be taken up for hearing dispensing with all other formalities. The appellant is the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The appeal is directed against an order dt. May 19, 1986, passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Suit No. 111 of 1974. By the order impugned the learned Judge has allowed an application for restoration of the suit by setting aside an ex parte decree subject, however, to some conditions. The defendant/ appellant although they had succeeded in the application for restoration, feels aggrieved by the conditions imposed and as such has preferred the present appeal.2. The three respondents instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery to a sum of Rs. 65,000/- on declaration that a Policy of Insurance dt. Dec. 26, 1967, was subsisting and was in force at the time of the death of Sambhunath Arora on Jan. 29, 1969, and for consequential reliefs.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!