Kolkata Court August 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Banarhat Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD570(Kol.)
1. By this appeal, the department challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition on account of undervaluation of closing stock. It is opposed by the assessee-company by filing cross-objection.2. The assessee-company owns several tea gardens in the Dooars and Assam and its business is cultivation and manufacture of tea. In the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee-company changed the earlier method of valuing the closing stock of tea to garden cost or estimated realisable value whichever is lower. This method of valuing the closing stock of tea was followed by the assessee-company in the assessment year under consideration also. As in the earlier years, the ITO declined to accept this valuation and valued the closing stock of tea at the average sale price and added the resultant amount of Rs. 32,50,516 to the total income of the assessee-company. This addition was challenged by the assessee-company on appeal.3. In the meantime, by its order dated 15-9-1984 in ...
Kajal Goswami and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC119
Lilamoy Ghosh, J.1. In a case under Section 46A of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, the learned S.D.J.M., Asansol discharged the petitioners. Against that there was a motion to the learned Sessions Judge. By his order dated 20-9-1980, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed him to proceed with the case from the stage as it stood on 19-5-1980.2. Against that order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have filed this revisional application. Mr. Moni Bhusan Sirkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, has urged two points. His first point has been that the case as placed, does not disclose any offence under the Excise Act at all. His second point has been that under Section 92 of the Bengal Excise Act previous sanction of the State Government was needed and the prosecution must have been instituted within six months after the date of the act complained of.3. Mr. A.R. Saha, the learned Advocate appearing for the State, has supported ...
The Manager, Government of India Forms Stores Vs. Assistant Commission ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC93(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Government of India Forms Stores, the assessee, is a department of the Government of India. The said department supplies official forms to various departments of the Government of India as also to undertakings belonging either to the Government of India or the State Governments. For supply of such forms the assessee charges to the concerns supplied the value of the forms supplied, cost of packing and an amount described as 'levy charge' being 10 per cent of the total amount of the previous two items.2. The assessee is registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Sealdah Charge, in the course of examination of the sales journals of the assessee found that during the period from the 1st April, 1965 to the 31st March, 1966, there had been inter-State supply of forms by the assessee as aforesaid and a total amount of Rs. 1,78,671.83 had been realised by the assessee on account thereof.4. The Commercial Tax Office...
Murarka Dealers and Investors Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD625(Kol.)
1. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for the above two years. Accordingly, the learned counsels of both the sides have addressed us in one set Since the facts of the case are identical and the point involved is common, we consolidate the appeals for disposal by this common order.2. The appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has sustained the computation made by the ITO for both the assessment years, i.e., 1981-82 and 1982-83. The common ground of appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law without proper reasons in not following the order of his predecessor given in the past. We shall deal with this ground at a later stage.3. The next common ground of appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee was not the owner of the property at 2B, Shashi Sekhar Bose Road, Calcutta. Even when in the case of registered owner, the Income-tax Department has held that it was not a registered person, the...
Byomkesh Banerjee Vs. Nani Gopal Banik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal92,91CWN272
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this appeal against a decree for specific performance of a contract to sell land, Mr. Ali, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, has urged that, firstly, there was no offer from and on behalf of the defendant-appellant to sell land to the plaintiff-respondent, and that, secondly, even if there was any such offer, there was in law no acceptance thereof by and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent and Mr. Ali has accordingly urged that the learned Judge was wrong in decreeing the suit.2. It appears from the evidence on record that the plaintiff-respondent by his letter. Ext. 1, to the defendant-appellant offered to purchase the disputed land at Rs. 3000/- per Katha. This offer does not appear to have been accepted by the defendant who by his reply, Ext. 8, stated that he had already received higher offers at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per Katha and the plaintiff was therefore required to inform him if he was agreeable to purchase the land at the rate ...
Jameson and Magrudar Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Cal)81,[1987]167ITR77(Cal)
A.K. Sengupta, J.1. In this application under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged two notices, one dated March 8, 1976, and the other dated March 29, 1986 (76?) issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the aseessment year 1971-72. The original assessment for the assessment year was completed on March 20, 1971, under Section 143(3) of the said Act.2. The petitioner also preferred an appeal against the said assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner heard the appeal for the assessmentyear 1971-72 along with the appeals for other two years and granted certain reliefs to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter went to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal and a question of law was referred at the instance of the petitioner by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Act relating to the assessability of import entitlement.3. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under Sect...
Swadeshi Fan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC312(Cal)
A.K. Sengupta, J.1. The petitioner, Swadeshi Fan Industries Pvt. Ltd., is a Private Limited Company incorporated in December, 1978. It installed a factory for manufacture of electric fans and components at Howrah. The said factory was installed with new plant and machinery. The petitioner has been carrying on the business inter alia, of manufacturing and sale of electric fans and components thereof at the said factory.2. The petitioner was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, read with the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1954. A certificate of registration was issued to the petitioner by the respondent on 2nd September, 1979.3. The petitioner started production at the said factory some time in December, 1978 and the first sale within the State of West Bengal out of the said production took place on or about 14th September, 1979. The petitioner has also registered its unit as a small-scale industrial unit with the Director of Cottage and Small...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Krishna Bazaz
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR620(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Sri Krishna Bazaz, the assessee, was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1968-69, the valuation date being July 8, 1967. The due date for filing the return under Section 14(1) of theWealth-tax Act, 1957, was June 30, 1968, but the assessee filed his return on November 6, 1969.2. For the delay in filing the return, the Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act and penalty of Rs. 23,400 was levied. The contention of the assessee that the delay in filing the return was on account of her illness was not accepted.3. On an appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no reasonable cause for - the delay and that penalty was leviable. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, directed that penalty should be levied in accordance with the law in force prior to the amendment of Section 18(1) of the Wealth-tax Act which came into force from April 1, 196...
income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Madhulika AgarwallA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: [1987]20ITD72(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri S. K. Jain, Judicial Member - Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the penalty of Rs. 83,500 imposed by the ITO under section 271(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) the department has come up in appeal.2. These relevant facts need be noticed :The assessee had mostly share income from some partnership firms. Return of income for the assessment year 1975-76 was not filed by her by the due date, i.e., to say 31-7-1975 as was required by section 139(1) of the Act. She filed an application in Form No. 6 on 28-6-1975 for extension of time for furnishing the return up to 30-9-1975. The ITO, it appears, did not pass any order on the said application. He, however, issued a notice under section 139(2) which was served upon the assessee on 29-11-1975. Even then, the assessee did not file any return of income. Subsequent notice under section 142(1) of the Act served upon the assessee also went unresponsed. The ITO, therefore, completed the assessm...
Amulya Pal Vs. Bhupen Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ85
ORDERM.R. Mallick, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Cr. P.C. The facts are briefly (as) follows:The petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the opposite parties before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, and on the basis of which complaint case No. 2217/75/T1455/75 was initiated. After trial Sri N. Ghosh learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, by his judgment and order dt. 19-12-79 acquitted the accused persons and on being prima facie satisfied that the case has been falsely instituted issued a notice Under Section 250 of Cr. P.C. against the present petitioner to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused persons. The petitioner had shown (cause) to the aforesaid notice. Sri S. R. Banerjee, learned Judicial Magistrate, who succeeded Sri N. Ghosh, by his order dt. 11th Aug., 1980 directed the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- each to each of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »