Kolkata Court January 1988 Judgments
Babulal Agarwalla Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal92,[1988]64CompCas461(Cal)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the State Bank of India Bikaner and Jaipur, Brabourne Road Branch for recovery of Rs. 5,716.60p and for interim and further interest under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff carries on the business under name and style of H. B. Transport Co. at 72/73, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta as the sole proprietor of the said business and has opened and maintained a current account with the defendant bank at its Brabourne Road Branchat 4, Synagogue Street, Calcuttaand used to operate the said account by drawing cheque duly signed by the plaintiff under the seal of the said H. B. Transport Co. On or about 14th Aug. 1978 the plaintiff found to his utter surprise that one cheque bearing serial number 998385 was missing from the cheque book of the plaintiff kept in his custody and upon enquiry it was found out that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was drawn on the 12th Aug. 1978 from the said account by virtue of that cheque. Upon fu...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad Himatlal Daftary Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC319,1988(18)LC191(Calcutta),1988(36)ELT468(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th December, 1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive). The facts of the case are stated hereafter.2. The petitioner has been carrying on business of general merchandise and importer and exporter of various goods. In course of his business he obtained trade licence from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation as also the Importer's Code Number from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta.3. Pursuant to an agreement between the petitioner and M/s. Syarikat Nyalchand Motichand of Singapore (hereinafter referred to as the said foreign supplier) the said foreign suppliers shipped 94 bales containing 280 cartons of Staple Pins (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) to Calcutta. The price in respect of the said goods was agreed to be paid by the petitioner on documents against payment basis. The said goods were shipped by the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Kumar Sen Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1818
Sankar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Bijoy Kumar Sen alias Birju, the appellant before us, was arraigned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North 24 Paraganas, Barasat, to answer the following chargesFirst - That you, on or about the 12th day of May, 1982 at Michaelnagar, Janakalyan Hindu Hotel, P.S. Airport, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of your wife Smt. Gopa Sen and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Secondly - That you, on or about the same day of May, 1982 knowing that certain offence, to wit, murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life, had been committed knowingly gave false information, to wit, information that the deceased Gopa Sen had caught fire owing to accidental burst of stove, with the intention of screening yourself from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.2. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Mackinlay (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Arthur Young Mcclelland Moores and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: [1990]184ITR346(Cal)
The following judgment were handed down.SLADE L.J. - This is an appeal by a firm now as Arthur Young and formerly knowns as Arthur Young McClelland Moores & Co.,from the order of Vinelott J. made on October 30, 1986. He had before him an appeal from the special Commissioner by way of case stated under section 56 of the Taxes Management Act 1970. The appeal related to an assessment to income-tax made against the firm under Schedule D for the year 1981-82. for this purpose the assessable profit of the firm fell to be calculated by reference to the accounting period 1 May 1979 to 30 April 1980. Briefly, the question at issue was and is whether two sums expended by the firm as contribution to the expenses incurred by two of the partners in moving house at the request of the firm are deductible in ascertaining those profit.The firm is large and well-known firm of chartered accountants. As at 30 April 1980 it had 95 partners and about 1,400 employees, of whom about half were professionally q...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindusthan Motors Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Cal)197,[1988]170ITR431(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Hindusthan Motors Ltd., the assessee, in the assessment year 1971-72. On an application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal 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 is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to higher rebate on all its automobile ancillaries including those utilised by it in the assembling of its own cars and in that view allowing a higher rebate at 25% for the assessment year 1971-72 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's claim to development rebate in respect of the tube-well was justified and in that view granting development rebate on tube-well brought into existence during the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. S.H. MumtazuddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1320
Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order of acquittal passed by Sri Pratihar. Metropolitan Magistrate Fourth Court. Calcutta in Case No. C/2125 of 1977.2. What happened in that case was that one Mirajuddin (accused-respondent No. 3) and his son Ferozuddin (accused-respondent No. 4) were found sitting within their shop at 4, Radhabazar Street Calcutta on 7-1-74. The place was visited by Sri Debabrata Ghosh, Inspector of Customs & Central Excise being assisted by Sri Bimal Kumar Banerjee (P.W. 4), Inspector of Customs & Central Excise. P.W. 6 Sri D.N. Ghose, another Inspector of Customs and P.W. 7 Sri M.R. Roy, still another Inspector were all there at that time and place to witness the search. In the presence of all these persons a cardboard box containing 88 pieces of foreign-made wrist-watches were found out at that place and on that very date accused Mirajuddin gave a written statement wherein he stated in clear terms that he had no consci...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Metal (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: [1988]172ITR153(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, ACTG. C.J. 1. On an application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal 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 the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the gross amount of dividend received from domestic companies and not in respect of the net dividend? '2. It appears that subsequent to the order of the Tribunal which was passed on August 23, 1976, a new Section 80AA was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Finance (No. 2), Act, 1980, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1968. The said section reads as follows:' 80AA. Where any deduction is required to be allowed under Section 80M in respect of any income by way of dividends from a domestic company which is included in the gross total income of the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramdutt Ramkissendass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: [1988]172ITR142(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, Actg. C.J. 1. On an application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal 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, theassessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 76,649 was rightly allowed by theTribunal ' 2. It is found as a fact, which is not in dispute, that in the assessment year 1972-73, the relevant accounting year ending on October 8, 1971, the assessee claimed deduction of the said amount of Rs. 76,649 being the provision for gratuity for its employees. The amount of gratuity provided for was calculated on the basis of a valuation made by qualified actuaries. This provision for gratuity was made in view of the West Bengal Employees' (Payment of Compulsory Gratuity) Act, 1971, promulgated by the State of West Bengal which came into force on June 14, 1971, and for the first time created a speci...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krishna Agarwalla Vs. the Controller of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT3(HC),1989(19)ECC202,1988(34)ELT25(Cal)
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. These two matters are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal since they involve common questions of fact and law.2. As a matter of fact, in both the Civil Rules the common question involved is the effect of non-service of notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners in both the Rules are whole-salers in cigarettes. They buy and sell wholesale various brands of cigarettes manufactured by Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. in its Division of National Tobacco Company (in short, the N.T.C.). The petitioners not being manufacturers cigarettes are not liable for payment of any excise duty. However, the Central Excise authorities sometime in February, 1984 carried out search in the business premises of the petitioners and seized several packets of cigarettes as well as a number of documents under the different seizure lists. Subsequently, however, the seized goods excepting the documents were released in favour of the petitioners on their executi...
Tag this Judgment!Ambika Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT188(Cal)
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. These two matters are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal since they involve common questions of fact and law.2. As a matter of fact, in both the Civil Rules the common question involved is the effect of non-service of notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. The petitioners in both the Rules are wholesalers in cigarettes. They buy and sell wholesale various brands of cigarettes manufactured by Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. in its Division of National Tobacco Company (in short, the N.T.C.). The petitioners not being manufacturers of cigarettes are not liable for payment of any excise duty. However, the Central Excise authorities sometime in February, 1984 carried out search in the business premises of the petitioner and seized several packets of cigarettes as well as a number of documents under different seizure lists. Subsequently, however, the seized goods excepting the documents were released in favour of the petitioners on their executin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »