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.
Goldwyn Traders (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD532(Kol.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 9-7-1984 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1980-81.2. The only ground taken in this appeal states that, on the facts of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment was completed within the prescribed time.3. The assessee is a limited company deriving income from business as an exporter of shellac. The assessment year involved is 1980-81 with the year ending 31-3-1980 as its relevant previous year. In the normal course, the assessment should have been completed on or before 31-3-1983 as per the provisions of Section 153(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessment was actually completed on 18-8-1983 so that there was a delay of 140 days reckoned from 31-3-1983. Explanation 1(iv) to Section 153 states "the period (not exceeding one hundred and eighty days) commencing from the date on which the Income-tax Officer forwards the draft order under...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR57(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. M/s Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1951-52, the accounting year ending on December 31, 1950. The assessee's total income was computed at Rs. 35,80,067. While computing the tax payable on the said total income, the Income-tax Officer applied proviso (i) to Paragraph B of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1951. The total income as reduced by 7 annas in the rupee exceeded the amount of the dividend declared and rebate at the rate of 1 anna per rupee was allowed on the amount of such excess. No order was made under Section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A tax demand for Rs. 7,30,558 was raised and was set off against the tax paid in advance and deducted at source.2. An appeal was filed against the said assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who reduced the quantum of the total income by an order passed on July 13, 1957. A further appeal was preferred by the assessee again...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR29(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Calcutta Credit Corporation, the assessee, in the assessment year 1966-67, the accounting year ending on June 30, 1965. In making the assessment, the Income-tax Officer found Rs. 1,20,000 standing credited in the name of one Shankarlal Dulichand in the books of the assessee. A sum of Rs. 10,846 was also shown as paid by way of interest to the said Shankarlal Dulichand. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the particular item of entry and treated the said sum of Rs. 1,20,000 as the assessee's income from other sources. He also disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 10,846 which was claimed to have been paid to Shankarlal Dulichand by way of interest. The taxable income of the assessee was computed accordingly. 2. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the creditor, Shankarlal Dulichand, was a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Carbide India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR550(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The material facts and proceedings leading up to the present reference are as follows :2. Union Carbide India Ltd., the assessee, carries on business of manufacture of various products. In the assessment year 1975-76, the relevant accounting year ending on December 25, 1971, the assessee acquired some trawlers with sophisticated equipment like echosounders, electronic fish finding equipment, trawlers, radars, etc., for deep sea fishing and set up a 'Deep Sea Fishing Division' for fishing shrimps in the deep sea.3. The trawlers and the equipments were utilised not only for fishing but also for decapitating, peeling and packing shrimps in special containers and freezing them in special quick-freezing chambers installed in the vessels.4. In the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee was assessed to income-tax. In the assessment, the assessee claimed relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of its undertaking, 'Deep Sea Fishing Division'. The I...
Universal Packaging Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1986
Reported in: [1988]71STC90(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (North) Circle on 12th June, 1986 (being annexure B to the writ petition) by which the petitioner was asked to show cause on 7th July, 1986 at 11.30 p.m. as to why the eligibility certificate of the petitioner will not be cancelled db initio from the date of issue of eligibility certificate as the writ petitioner has violated the conditions of Rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941.2. The contention of the petitioner is that under Rule 3(66) of the Rules, the eligibility certificate that is granted cannot be db initio cancelled. The certificate that was granted has already expired, and the benefits of that certificate cannot be taken away retrospectively. The petitioner has drawn my attention to the phraseology of Rule 3(66)(iii) of the Rules, 1941 by which the authority granting the eligibility certificate has been empower...
Smt. Santilata Chiney Vs. Balaram Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal106
ORDERSankar Bhattacharyya, J.1. This revisional application raises a short point for determination.The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 53 of 1983 of the 2nd Court of the Munsif at Serampur. The suit was brought against her by the opposite party for a declaration that he is owner of the suit properties by virtue of the registered deed of gift executed in his favour on 22-5-80 by his uncle late Prabhat Ranjan Khan who was the original owner of the properties.2. The case of the opposite party is that his uncle died on 14-6-80 and on 22-5-80 he executed a registered deed of gift conveying the suit properties to him (opposite party). The petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased was, however, realising rents from the tenants of the suit properties and interfering with his possession of the same in various other ways. As his right to the suit properties was clouded by the acts of the petitioner, he had to bring the suit for the reliefs stated above.3. The suit was valued a...
U.P. Paper Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas728(Cal),91CWN248
Shamsuddin Ahmed, J.1. These two applications are taken up together for hearing as they involve the same question of law. It appears that opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint before the learned Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Calcutta, alleging that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Rule 10 read with Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956, as they have failed to submit a return in terms of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. It was stated that under the provisions of the said Rules, they were 'required to file the return on or before 30th June, every year, with the complainant in prescribed forms furnishing the information contained therein. This failure to submit the return is punishable under Rule 11 of the said Rules. Rule 11 provides that if a company or any other person contravenes any of the provisions of these rules, the company and other officer of the company who was in default or such other person shall be punishable ...
Shreepati Distributors Ltd. and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]168ITR530(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. Section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, defines 'previous year '. Generally, it means an accounting year of 12 months. It may be the financial year or at the option of the assessee, any other period of 12 months. Section 3(4) lays down that if an assessee has once exercised his option of choosing his 'previous year', he shall not be entitled to vary his accounting year except with the consent of the Income-tax Officer and upon such conditions as the Income-tax Officer may think fit to impose.2. In the instant case, the assessee is a company which used to follow the year ending on 31st December, as its 'previous year'. This system continued up to the assessment year 1982-83. For the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee wanted to change its previous year to the financial year. This change was allowed by the Income-tax Officer and the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 was completed on the basis of the previous year from January 1, 1982, to March 31, 198...
Sm. Anjali Porel Vs. Santosh Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ2110
M.R. Mallick, J.1. This is an appeal by the complainant against an order dt. 29-7-1983 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah in Case No. C 234/83 under Section 256(1) of the Criminal P.C. acquitting the accused-respondents on the ground that the appellant was found absent on repeated calls.2. The complainant-appellant filed a petition of complaint against the accused-respondents on 13-4-83 alleging that the appellant is a maid servant in the employ of Sri Anil Kumar Bhandary who is an Advocate practising in this Hon'ble Court. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are monthly tenants in respect of only one room in the ground floor of premises No. 4, Ram Ratan Basu Lane and one common bath-cum-privy and water tap in the ground floor. The accused-respondent No. 4 is a friend of the respondent No. 3 and often visits her. The accused-respondents who are of very bad temperament and for a long time were on bad terms with the master of the appellant and the member of his family o...
S.K. Ghosh Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ581
ORDERSudhangsu Sekhar Ganguly, J.1. This revisional application HD/1D/D779/86/HR has been filed for the quashing of the proceedings in Special Court case, 6 of 1970, Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, together with the order dt. 30-3-1983 passed in it framing charge against the present petitioner under the provisions of the law mentioned above.2. It appears that the petitioner held the post of Deputy Assistant Director General in the office of the Director General of Ordnance Factories, Calcutta, in January 1961 and worked continuously in the Truck Section of that office up to 1966 by which time he was promoted as Assistant Director General. While posted in this office the petitioner handled theplacement of a number of supply orders for truck components required for production of Nissan and Shaktiman Trucks in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur. The complaint against the petitioner was that during the period 1-1-61 to 31-8-67 he acquire...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »