Kolkata Court December 1988 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. Nippon Yusen Kaisha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: [1989]180ITR442(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-II, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75 :'Whether, oh the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no information in the possession of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to form a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment ?'2. The short question which calls for determination in this case is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no information in the possession of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to form a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment.3. The assessee is a non-resident shipping company. The assessee-company derived income from India and abroad. Originally, the assessment was completed by applying Rule 10(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, but, subsequently, the assessment was re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: [1989]178ITR451(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1964-65. It arises in consequence of the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,80,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment had been made in the status of an unregistered firm. The Income-tax Officer stated, while making the assessment, that as in the previous years, the application for registration by the assessee was rejected and the assessment was completed as a protective measure. It was stated before the Tribunal that for the last several years, the income had been assessed actually in thehands of Shri Mahabir Prasad Modi and that in the assessee's case only protective assessments were made. In the present assessment, the Income-tax Officer included certain cash credits aggregating to Rs. 1,58,000 treating the same as the assessee's own income from undisclosed sources and this addition was primarily the subject-matter of the levy of ...
Harbanslal Malhotra and Sons Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR46(Cal)
Susanta Kumar Chatterjee, J.1. The aforementioned civil rules were issued on June 26, 1978, and an interim order was made in. terms of prayer (e) to the writ petition. The prayer was for restraining the respondents and each of them from proceeding any further with or giving any effect to or taking any steps whatsoever relating thereto and thereunder or in respect of or in furtherance of or under the notice dated April 20, 1978, and all proceedings/notices and orders relating thereto and thereunder under Section 154/155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment orders as mentioned in the respective writ petitions. The writ petitions were moved mainly on the grounds that the conditions precedent necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, respondent No. 2, to initiate the purported proceedings and to make the alleged rectification under Section 154 read with Section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, do not exist and have not been ...
Krishna Pada Mondal Vs. Smt. Mahamaya Mallick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT409(HC),93CWN972
S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. These two Revisional applications are directed against Order No. 110, dated 11.3.1987 passed by the Learned Judge,. 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 188 of 1983. The Suit is one for eviction. By the impugned Order the Learned Judge disposed of the prayer for reliefs under Section 17(2) read with Section 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It is to be noted at this stage that the application preferred by the defendant was a composite one praying for reliefs as mentioned hereinabove. As far as relief under Section 17(2) was concerned, by an Order being Order No. 48, dated 26th of June, 1984 the Learned Judge dismissed the application under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as not maintainable, the admitted amount of arrears not having been deposited at the time of riling of application and the said Order No. 48 had been challenged by a subsequent Revisional application on behalf of the tenant with an ap...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. NuruddIn and Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)80CTR(Cal)233,[1990]185ITR481(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. At the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-X, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the unequivocal admission made by the assessee in its petition under Section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the effect that income had been concealed by it, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that no penalty was exigible under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act ?' 2. The facts, shortly stated, are that the Income-tax Officer originally completed the assessment for this year on a total income of Rs. 86,814. Thereafter, the assessee is stated to have made a disclosure petition under Section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income-tax on February 28, 1967. In the said disclosure petition, the assessee admitted that cash credits ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaswantiraj and Bros.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: [1990]182ITR151(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner ofIncome-tax, the following two questions of law have been referred to thiscourt under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-V, Calcutta, had no jurisdiction to make the order of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this case ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not been heard before the order imposing the penalty was made was based on no evidence or based only on irrelevant materials and/or was otherwise unreasonable ?' 2. The controversy in this reference relates to the jurisdiction and validity of the penalty order under Section 274(2) read with Section 271(1)(c) passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindusthan Sanitary Ware and Industries ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: [1989]180ITR21(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, the following questions of law have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is right in holding that charging of interest under that section is discretionary and there must, therefore, be material on record to show that, before charging the interest, the Income-tax Officer had applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and satisfied himself that it was a fit case for charging interest under that statutory provision ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is right infolding that, before exercising the power of directing the assessee to pay int...
Bholanath Biswas Vs. Rabindra Kumar Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT405(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. This appeal is against the appellate judgment and decree passed by Sri K. C. Mukherjee, Additional District Judge, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 50 of 1966 by which the Learned Judge while dismissing the Appeal filed before him against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, in Title Suit No. 34 of 1960, has confirmed the preliminary decree passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge subject to the modification that the portion in which the parties were directed to get the Suit properties amicably partitioned amongst them in respect of their respective shares in terms of the award within three months from the date of the Order should stand deleted and it should be substituted by the Order that the interim award be referred back to the Arbitrators for making the award final by partitioning the properties by metes and bounds in respect of the respective shares of the parties in terms of the interim award within four months from date.2. The fac...
Trident Television Private Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC228,1990(45)ELT24(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed on 29th September, 1987, (being Annexure 'M' to the petition) by the Collector of Customs and despatched to the petitioners on 15th December, 1987. By the said order, the Collector of Customs purported to confiscate entire consignments imported by the petitioners. The impugned order of the Collector is directed against 540 Colour Picture Tubes imported and 500 sets of Plastic Moulded Parts imported by the first petitioner and 500 sets Printed Circuit Boards for Colour Television imported by the second petitioner.2. The first petitioner is a Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the second petitioner is the sole proprietor of a concern known as Trident Electronics (hereinafter referred to as the said firm). He is also one of the Directors of the first petitioner M/s. Trident Television Private...
Associated Forest Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT264(Cal)
Acts/Rules/Orders: Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 12, 15(1), 31(2), 31(3), 46, 46(3) and 48; Home Consumption Act - Section 46(1); Indian Tariff Act, 1934 - Section 2A; Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 3; Constitution of India - Article 14Cases Referred: Union of India v. Modi Rubber Ltd., A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1992 : 1986 (25) E.L.T. 849 (SC); Apar Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 (22) E.L.T. 644; Dinesh Kumar Newatia v. Collector of Customs, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 606 (SC)]; S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain (1979) 3 SCC 54; Wallace Brothers and Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 16 ITR 240; Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, 59 ITR 767 (SC); Chatturm Horilram Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 27 ITR 709; Kalwas Devadattam v. Union of India, 49 ITR 165 AIR 1963 SC 1760; R.C. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1281; Shinde Brothers v. Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, AIR 1967 SC 1512; Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 420 : 1983...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »