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.
Ghanshyam Chejra Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC327,1993LC68(Calcutta),1989(44)ELT202(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed on 29th September, 1987 (being annexure 'M' to the petition) by the Collector of Customs and despatched to the petition on 15th December, 1987. By the said order, the Collector of Customs purported to confiscate entire consignments imported by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s. Trident Electronics. The petitioner is an importer of various electronic components and material parts of T.V., V.C.R., Electronic Typewriter and other accessories. He is also eligible to purchase imported materials from Export Houses, imported under valid additional import licence granted to such export houses in terms of the Export House Scheme as per para 263 of the Import-Export Policy, 1985-88. The petitioner is also authorised to acquire various components and parts of T.V., V.C.R. and other allied parts.3. The case of the petitioner is that...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rangalal Bagaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: [1990]181ITR200(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-III, the following questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80T(b)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the gross capital gains arising on the sale of house property ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the provisions of Sections 70(2)(ii) and 80B(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby ignoring the long-term capital loss on the sale of shares in computing the deduction under Section 80T(b)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts are that the assessee made long-term capital gains on the sale of his share in property at 9, Circus Avenue, Calcutta, for Rs. 2,78,250. The assesse...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR101(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IX, the following questions of law have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969-70 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had ignored relevant materials and/or had relied on irrelevant materials in holding that the assessee did not know or had no reason to believe that the estimate of the advance tax furnished by it was untrue ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that no penalty could be imposed on the assessee under Section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts relating to this reference are that the Income-tax Officer issued notice under Section 210 of the 1961 Act calling upon the assessee to pay advance tax of Rs. 2,55,920. The assessee, however, filed its own estimate on May 24, 1968, as permitted und...
Giridharilal Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)80CTR(Cal)140,[1989]179ITR122(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, 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 1975-76 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 220 dated May 31, 1977 (see [1977] 108 ITR 8), the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 22,098 in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are that the assessee, an individual, is a wholesale dealer in jaggery. Before the Income-tax Officer, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that he started a proprietary business styled Dilip Stores on December 13, 1973. The assessee paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 37,048 consisting of amounts paid in cash in excess of Rs. 2,500. The payments in question were made to Mangi...
Khub Chand Kundanmal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1988
Reported in: [1991]187ITR334(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the short question which calls for determination is what would be the rate of penalty applicable to the case of the petitioner.2. Shortly stated, the facts are that, for the assessment year 1964-65, the petitioner, a firm, filed its return on August 10, 1964. The Income-tax Officer, while making the assessment on the return filed on August 10, 1964, requested the petitioner to file a duplicate return and, accordingly, a duplicate return for the said assessment year was filed on February 12, 1969. On the said return, it was marked 'duplicate'. A disclosure petition under Section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), was filed by each of the partners of the petitioner on June 2, 1965. The assessment for the said assessment year was completed on February 14, 1969, and the total income was computed at Rs. 80,731 which included the sum of Rs. 40,000 being...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hemraj Mahabir Prosad (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR73(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal One is at the instance of the assessee and the other one is at the instance of the Revenue. The first question referred at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is right in holding that the addition of Rs. 5,75,154 made in the assessment for the assessment year 1971-72 as deemed dividend is unsustainable and in that view deleting the same from the income of the assessee for that assessment year ?'2. The second question is referred at the instance of the assessee and is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true construction of the deed of sub-lease dated November 14, 1969, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 11,00,000 payable by the assessee in four instalments to the sub-lessor, Macneill ...
Steel Rolling Mills of Hindusthan Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1988
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)316
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following question of law as directed by this Court by an order dt. 23rd May, 1978 passed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to its commitments, the profits of the assessee company for the asst. yr. 1964-65 were small within the meaning of Smallness of profits in s. 104(2) of the IT Act, and that declaration of any dividend by the company would have been unreasonable ?'2. The facts found by the Tribunal have been stated in the statement of case and is as under :'The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. It filed the return of income for the year 1964-65 claiming a loss of Rs. 79,418. This loss was arrived at by claiming from the net profit of Rs. 3,71,318 development rebate of Rs. 4,60,736. In the course of assessment proceedings, concealed income outside the books of account was detected and the assessee compan...
West Bengal State Electricity Board Engineers' Association and Anr. Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ328Cal
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. A judical interpretation of Regulation 14(4) of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Service Regulations') is called for, in the instant writ petition filed on behalf of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Engineers' Association and Anr. (hereinafter called 'the petitioners herein').2. The said provisions of Service Regulations is set out hereinbelow:14(4). In the case of promotion, the appropriate Selection Committee shall consider the claims of all candidates eligible for promotion and examine their service records. It may also hold an examination and/or interview of the candidates. Thereafter it will advise the appointing authority as to the candidates deserving promotion.3. Although in the writ petition, the vires of the said Service Regulations has not been challenged in express terms, but at the hearing, Mr. Pravat Kumar Sengupta., learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. ...
New Howrah Transport Company and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal179
ORDERSusanta Chatterji, J.1. For effective adjudication as agreed by the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties both the matters were taken up for consideration. Similar points cover both the cases. Both the writ applications raise a constitutional question as to the vires of Section 29B(2)(c) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.2. It is asserted that the appropriate authority issuing the certificate as contemplated under Section 29B of Sub-section (2)(c) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has had no basis to arrive at the finding of facts as to the requirement of the landlord concerned and there is non-application of mind both at the time of issuing the certificate and at the time of passing the order by the Rent Controller. Section 29B, Sub-section (2)(c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act provide for enquiry or inspection. There is also no provision for verification of the case of the landlord. The said section provides merely a show of an adjudication. Even thou...
The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Ramniwas Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal375,(1989)1CALLT146(HC)
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The respondent 1 Ramniwas Poddar and the respondent 2 Keshar Dev Sharaf carry on business under the name and style of Poddar and Sharaf, the respondent 3 herein and are the owners of the premises No. 1 Belvedere Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises').2. Under a scheme of amalgamation duly approved by this Court as well as by the Bombay High Court, the Indian Tube Company Limited was amalgamated with the petitioner as a result whereof all the assets and liabilities, rights and obligations of the Indian Tube Company Ltd. were taken over by the petitioner and the same stood transferred, merged and vested in the petitioner.3. The Indian Tube Company had entered into four agreements with Poddar and Sharof, the respondent 3 herein, for purchasing four flats in the said premises being Flats Nos. 5E, 9E, 12A and 14A. These agreements contained arbitration clauses for resolving the disputes arising out of these contracts. Subsequently, disp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »