Kolkata Court September 1986 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agarpara Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Cal)155,[1987]167ITR866(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. On an application of the Revenue 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, and on a correct interpretation of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 53,487 was an allowable expenditure in computing the profits and gains of the assessee's business ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 48,440 representing 'difference' paid for non-fulfilment of contract for supply of flour and cement bags was an allowable deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1972-73 ' 2. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the controversy raised therein is covered by the two decisions of this court in CIT v. Pioneer Tradi...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Unit Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal175
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J. 1. The present application has been taken out under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dt. 28-3-85. The award is a money award and is a non-speaking one. Under the agreement, the arbitrator was required to give the breakups of the total amount award. In compliance with the said provision, the arbitrator has given the breakup of each item of claim. 2. Although various grounds have been taken in the petition for attacking the said award, during hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only three grounds : -- 1) Items Nos. 1 and 2 of the claims are excepted matters and the Chief Engineer has already given his decision on these claims. The said decision is binding on the parties under Clause 61A of the Contract. Therefore, these items are not arbitrable at all. 2) The amounts awarded against claims Nos. 4 and 5 are in violation of the express provisions contained in Clause 11 of the General Conditions of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Cal)152,[1987]167ITR27(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, was assessed to surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act,1964, in the assessment year 1966-67, the accounting year ending on December 31, 1965. In the computation of capital for the purpose of surtax as on January 1, 1965, the Income-tax Officer excluded a sum of Rs. 26,342 which was shown as provision for contingencies.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal from the assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that though the said amount was stated to be a provision, the same was actually a reserve, as there were no specific items of liabilities in view for which the said amount had been set apart. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the assessee and held, inter alia, that there was no specific item contemplated or mentioned in the accounts of the assessee against which the said amount was inten...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Swastik Board and Paper Mills (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD288(Kol.)
1. In these appeals by the revenue common grounds have been raised as the facts of the case in all the years are identical. The appeals by the revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the claim of the assessee that it was neither receiving nor the money was accrued to the assessee in respect of the lease rent, was correct.This is the first common ground of appeal. The facts of the case are discussed below.2. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessment was made earlier by the ITO under Section 144 which was reopened under Section 146 and ultimately the order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In the order of assessment, the ITO indicated that the assessee is a company and the accounts were maintained on mercantile basis. The assessee in compliance with the notice under Section 143(2) made written submission to explain the return. It was stated that the assessee-company gave away its plant and machinery on lease to Amrit ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Chattopadhyay Vs. the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)0CALLT179(HC)
Manash Nath Roy, J.1. The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the said Institute), is a body corporate and constituted under Section 2(f) of the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the appellant was appointed as a Director of Research of the same sometime in September 1969. He as a petitioner moved and obtained Civil Order No. 15007 (W) of 1981, challenging the validity of the decision of the Council of the said Institute, as communicated to him by the Secretary of the same, by his letter dated 19th October 1981, whereby the said Secretary, further to his letter dated 23rd September 1981, informed him that he was directed by the Council of the said Institute to regret to inform the appellant that the Council of the said Institute was unable to allow him to withdraw his resignation, which was already accepted with effect from 1st September 1981 and as such, requested the appellant t...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Rayon Corporation and Etc. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Cal228,1987(13)ECC83,1987(27)ELT626(Cal)
ORDERSudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. These two matters involving common questions of fact and law have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts of the two cases, which are practically identical, may be summarised as follows : --The petitioners No. 1 in both the cases are manufacturers of Ciscose Staple yarn and for that purpose import Viscose staple fibre from time to time.3. The Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 issued notifications exempting Viscose staple fibre from the whole of customs duty and whole of additional duty up to December 31, 1979.4. Subsequently, two fresh notifications dated January 5, 1979, were issued under Section 25(1) exempting Viscose Staple fibre from the whole of the basic customs duty as before, but introducing additional duty at the rate of Rs. 1.32 per kg. Both these notifications were to remain in force up to and inclusive of December 31, 1979.5. Relying upon these not...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Tosh and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Cal)272,[1987]166ITR867(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. A. Tosh and Sons (P) Ltd., the assessee, carries on business in purchase and sale of tea. In its said business, the assessee exports tea to foreign countries. At the material time, the assessee entered into agreements with foreign Governments and foreign Government authorities being the U.S.S.R., Poland, the United Arab Republic and Iraq for export of tea. The respective agreements which were recorded in writing were not included in the paper-book though the same had been considered and construed by the authorities below. Copies of the said agreements were produced at the hearing without any objection from the Revenue and the same have been considered by us. The copies produced have been directed to be kept on the record.2. The agreement with the United Arab Republic was entered into by the assessee on April 19, 1971. In the said agreement, it was recorded that the total value of the drawback refund and any changes in the drawback rate was to be on the account of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR797(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., the assessee, in the assessment year 1967-68, the accounting year ending on March 31, 1967. On the applications of both the assessee and the Revenue 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 was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,65,116 being the actuarial valuation of the assessee's liability on account of gratuity as on March 31, 1967 in accordance with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, payable to its employees constituted an allowable deduction in the computation of the profits and gains of its business for the assessment year 1967-68? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the ci...
Tag this Judgment!General Beopar Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Cal)291,[1987]167ITR86(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. General Beopar Co. (P.) Ltd., the assessee, is a private limited company. Some time in 1968, M/s Dabri Investment Private Ltd., another private limited company, was amalgamated with the assessee whereupon all assets and liabilities of the latter devolved on the assessee. M/s Dabri Investment Pvt. Ltd. had prior to its amalgamation taken on lease a property which had been let out under a sublease. Subsequent to the amalgamation, the rent from the sub-lease of the said property came to be assessed in the hands of the assessee.2. The assessee was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1973-74, the accounting year ending on June 30, 1972. In the said year, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,84,399 of which Rs. 50,083 was found to have arisen from the business of the assessee. The rent from the sub-lease of the said property which was accruing in the hands of the assessee was calculated at Rs. 94,808 and income from dividend was calculated to...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Mondal Vs. Nazam HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ729
ORDERMonoranjan Mallick, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 17-2-81 by which Sri A. N. Bhattacharya learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Burdwan, refusing to entertain the petitioner's application Under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. for issuing summons upon the opposite parties 1 and 2 namely, Sk. Nazam Hossain and Majnu alias Sk Manirujeman, for their appearance to face trial with the other accused persons.2. It is submitted that when on the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness No. 1 the opposite parties 1 and 2 were also implicated in the alleged offences, the learned Additional Sessions Judge illegally rejected the prayer of the public prosecutor in charge of the case, to issue summons against the opposite parties 1 and 2.3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor Under Section 319, Cr. P.C. Golam Mondal, who is the de facto complainant, has moved this Court in revision. It is submitted th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »