Kolkata Court July 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. Peico Electronics and Electricals (Form ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR299(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. M/s. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd., the assessee, an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, was assessed to surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in the assessment year 1974-75. The relevant accounting year ended on December 31, 1973.2. Under the Surtax Act, the Income-tax Officer was required to compute the capital of the assessee as on January 1, 1973. In computing the capital of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer excluded a sum of Rs. 19,36,835 on account of deduction allowed to the assessee under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer also excluded a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs which appeared in the balance-sheet of the assessee as a debenture redemption reserve.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered and construed the Explanation to Rule 1 of Schedule II to the Surtax Act and held that a sinking f...
Kalachand Saha Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1375
ORDERLilamoy Ghosh, J.1. The certified copy of the order complained of in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed in Court today.2. The same be accepted and kept on record.3. In compliance with this Court's order dt. 3-10-85 the petitioner has also filed the affidavit of service in Court on 26-6-86. It appears that service of the revisional application has been duly effected on the opposite party.4. Let the affidavit of service filed be accepted and kept on record.5. The revisional application has been heard upon notice to and on contest by the opposite party.6. The arrival of some sugar at Asansol, said to be unaccounted for, led to several cases which ultimately found their way up to this Court. There has been a lot of confusion also over the matter. The position is this that some sugar arrived at Asansol and the same was seized by the Police, the Enforcement j Branch, on 26-3-85. The petitioner was the registered agent in regard to the disposal and dist...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanhayalal Mukundlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR274(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Kanhayalal Mukundlal, the assessee, was assessable to income-tax for the assessment year 1962-63, the accounting year ending some time in April, 1962. The assessee was required to file its return by October 12, 1962, but filed the same only on January 14, 1966.2. For the delay in submission of its return, the Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee. In reply to a show-cause notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, it was contended by the assessee that the return had been filed late because the assessee had been contemplating to file a voluntary disclosure. In fact, the assessee subsequently filed a disclosure petition under Section 68 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965.3. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee. He held that there was no connection between not filing the return in time by the assessee and the voluntary disclosure scheme and levied a penalty of Rs. 15,234 under Section 271(1)(a) of the Incom...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shambhunath Karmakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1989(22)ECC66,1987(13)LC160(Calcutta),1986(26)ELT719(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The Union of India and others have preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 20th January, 1986 of Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. disposing of the writ application filed by Sambhunath Karmakar (since deceased), who was the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents 1(a) to 1(h). The learned Trial Judge has directed the Union of India and its officers either to return to the writ petitioner equivalent quantity of gold seized on 26th April, 1973 or to pay the market price of such gold as on the date of the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta dated 6th May, 1985.2. The present case has a chequerd history and for better appreciation of the points involved, we set out the salient facts of the case. On 26th April 1963 the Gold Control Officers attached to the Central Excise Collectorate, Calcutta had searched the premises of Sambhunath Karmakar and brothers of Ghatal and had recovered : (i) primary gold wei...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Ashutosh Adhikary and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1812
ORDERShamsuddin Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner herein is a statutory body established under the State Insurance Act, 1948. Opposite Party No. 1 is Managing Director and Ors. are Directors of M/s. Metro Engineering Pvt. Ltd. They are principal employers of the said factory to which ES.I. Code No. 413548 was allotted. Under the provisions of Sections 39 & 40 of the said Act opposite parties are required to deduct from the wages of each employee for each contributor period an amount of money in terms of the said Act and are required to purchase the contribution stamps from the State Bank of India with the said money and make the payment in the manner laid down by the Regulations under the said Act. On inspection of records of the said factory the Insurance Inspector found that during the period from August 1980 to Jan. 1981 the accused/opposite parties deducted from the wages of the monthly paid employees a sum of Rs. 316.20 as the employees' share of the said contribution 'Yom July 1980 to D...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sangit Kala Mandir Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR217(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts relevant and proceedings leading up to this reference are, inter alia, that Sangit Kala Mandir Trust, the asses-see, is a trust constituted by a deed of trust dated December 3, 1959. The trust was constituted for the promotion of science, literature, fine arts and sports and for other such religious, charitable, social and other objects as specified in the deed. The objects as specified under Clause 2 of the trust deed which are relevant are, inter alia, as follows :'2(a) To advance, promote and encourage education of all kinds, literary, physical, moral, aesthetic, scientific, cultural, technical, industrial and general; (p) To organise, hold and/or arrange to be held periodically kavi sammelans, mushairas, qawalis, dances, dramas, cinema shows, essay and story competitions, debates, recitations, symposia and other cultural and literary programmes and social gatherings for the benefit of the public and to invite poets, artists and litterateurs and other...
Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR558(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. On an application of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions, 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 Tribunal erred in holding that the excess payments of Rs. 6,34,484 and Rs. 42,284 made on account of fluctuations in the exchange rate of dollars, at the time of repayment of the dollar loan raised from EXIM Bank and ICICI, respectively, for purchasing machinery from abroad was a capital expenditure and not an allowable revenue expenditure ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the excess payments on account of fluctuations in the exchange rate of dollars for repayment of dollar loan should have been allowed as revenue expense since the payment under consideration had been incurred as an integral part of the profit-earning pro...
South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1989Cal10,1987(11)ECC372,1987(11)LC38(Calcutta),1987(30)ELT100(Cal)
ORDERSudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a short but interesting point, namely, whether smaller vessels or daughter vessels carrying cargo to the port from bigger or mother vessels bringing goods from foreign ports, which onaccount of their size, weight etc., cannot enter the port and remain berthed outside but within Indian territorial waters, fall within the definition of -- 'Foreign going vessel' so as to attract the provision of Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The petitioner is a Shipping Agent and has been and is still acting as the local agent of M/s. A. Halcoussis Shipping Ltd., a foreign company incorporated in the United Kingdom, which at all material times owned a motor tanker, namely, M.T. 'PERICIES HALCOUSSIS.'3. By and under a Charter party Agreement dated 24th Sept. 1981 between the said Shipping Company and the President of Union of India, the said vessel was to carry bulk cargo of wheat from ports in U.S. G...
Calcutta Properties Ltd. and Etc. Vs. S.N. Chakrabortty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Cal131,91CWN347
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. Both theFirst Miscellaneous Appeal and the First Appeal noted above are being disposed of by this common judgment whereunder the former shall stand dismissed while the latter shall stand decreed.2. A mortgage-suit being T. S. No. 46 of 1969 was instituted in the 3rd Court of the Subordinate Judgeat Alipore by the appellant against the original mortgagor as the defendant No. 1 and the subsequent purchaser of the mortgage-security as the defendant No. 2, who is now the respondent before us. The learned Judge, by his order dt. 21-1-71, dismissed the suit as in his view the mortgagor defendant No. 1 having died before the institution of the suit, the suit was not maintainable and could not proceed against the respondent-defendant No. 2 who was, as already noted, subsequent purchaser of the mortgage-security. As we shall see when we would deal with F. A. No. 162 of 1973, the order of the learned Judge was patently erroneous. The learned Judge also realised it very ...
Buddhadeb Dutta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Cal)49,[1987]166ITR428(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Buddhadeb Dutta, the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1963-64. On a notice issued under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee filed a return on May 18, 1974, showing that his income in the said assessment year was nil. On an investigation, the Income-tax Officer found that during the relevant assessment year, a property had been purchased at 18/48, Dover Lane, Calcutta, in the name of the assessee and his five brothers. Th share of the assessee in the said property was shown as one-sixth. The Income-tax 'Officer treated one-sixth of the purchase price, namely, Rs. 15,830 as having been contributed by the assessee and accordingly he made an addition of Rs. 15,830 to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as also the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer.2. In the meantime, the Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »