Kolkata Court February 1988 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Press Exchange Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR331(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The question of law sought to be referred to this court in this application of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 36,585 added under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The controversy sought to be raised in the said question appears to be settled by an earlier decision of this court in the case of Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1982]137ITR827(Cal) , which followed a still earlier decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. : [1979]119ITR431(Cal) . 3. In view of the aforesaid, we decline to issue any rule on this application which is rejected. 4. The learned advocate for the Revenue drew our attention to a decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd. : [1982]135ITR19(Ker) , where t...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Sen Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1275
J N. Hore, J.1. This is, an appeal by Prakash Sen against the judgment and order passed by Sri L.C. Banarjee, learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore convicting the appellant under Section 302, Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No. 2(3) of 1986.2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:Appellant Prakash Sen married Susama Adhikary (the deceased), daughter of Urmila Adhikary (PW2) and sister of complainant Anima Adhikary (P.W. 1) and Archana Adhikary (PW 9) about 9 months before the date of occurrence i.e. 6-9-1983. After marriage, Prakash and his wife Susama resided in the house of Prakash's father at Japur, Bongaon for 2/3 months and thereafter they lived together in a rented house at Gandhipally, Bongaon. They finally shifted to Madhyamgram where they were living together in a rented house at the time of occurrence.3. On 6-9-1983 Prakash and Susma came to the house of Rabi Adhikari (PW. 5), son-in-law of PW 1 Anima A...
Tag this Judgment!Gramophone Company of India Limited Vs. Baleswar and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Cal6
ORDER1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for an order of injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 its servants or agents from in any way manufacturing or selling or marketing or dealing with or distributing any copies of any records of any performances rendered by the respondent 1 or for the respondent 2 either in disks or in any casette or otherwise or at all. Petitioner has also prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent 1 from giving any performance for any person other than the petitioner for the purpose of manufacturing of records. The case of the petitioner is thatby a contract entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent 1 dt. May 14, 1984 the respondent 1 became exclusive artiste of the petitioner on inter alia the following terms and conditions :'1. For the purpose of this Agreement the following words shall have the meanings set forth against them: 'PERFORMANCE' shall include speech, singing playing on instrument whether alone or with...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamsi Liladhar Vora Vs. Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT17(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ application is filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus command-. ing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to cancel or rescind the impugned notices of demand and to direct them not to give effect to the said demand and to take steps from making attachment and sale of the petitioner's properties as per Annexure 'A' and to restrain them from giving any effect or further effect to the purported notice of demand and from taking any step or further step or further proceeding in respect of the alleged composite demands with a warrant notice for steps as contained in the notice (annexure 'A' to the writ petition) in any manner whatsoever. It is stated that the petitioner owns two houses (old) at No. 35 & 45 Prahalad Plot Street described as 'Dharam Niwas' being house No. 5/80 and as 'Vora Niwas' being house No. 5/700 both in the town of Rajkot, Gujrat. The respondent No. 1 is Municipal Corporation of Rajkot and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are ...
Tag this Judgment!Niren Samanta and anr. Vs. Rent Controller and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT317(HC),92CWN981
Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. The present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the landlord/petitioner challenging Order, dated 21.8.87 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Calcutta in R. C. Case No. 6 of 1986. By the impugned order the learned Rent Controller at the time of passing the final order in an application under Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act found that the proof of tenancy has not satisfactorily been placed by the applicant/tenant and he has given another opportunity to the applicant to prove his tenancy as a last chance by production of documents. Being aggrieved the landlord has come to this Court.2. Having heard Mr. Chatterjee for the petitioner and Mr. Das for the opposite parties at length, it appears that an application under Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was filed and the landlord contested the same contending inter alia that the applicant is not a premises tenant as there is no p...
Tag this Judgment!Baliaghata Plywood Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC425(Cal)
Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, Baliaghata Plywood . (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), was incorporated on 14th September, 1979. After installation of machinery and trial production it started manufacturing plywood tea chest and other materials. The petitioner was also registered as a small-scale industrial unit having permanent registration number. The petitioner is also a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The petitioner claimed that the manufacturing unit, being a newly set up small-scale industry, was entitled to claim deduction in gross turnover in respect of the sales of the said new unit under Rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941.3. The petitioner No. 1, was granted eligibility certificate, under the said Rule 3(66) for the period from 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981 which in turn entitled him to such deduction. The petitioner No. 1 carried on ...
Tag this Judgment!The Century Spinning Mfg. Co. and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC277(Cal)
D.S. Tewatia, C.J.1. These matters, viz., Appeals Nos. 271/80, 291/80, 319/80, 321/80, 320/80, 322/80, /80, 270/80, 272/80, 277/80, 278/80, 274/80, 273/80, 276/80, 275/80, 279/80, 280/80, 282/80, 281/80, 286/80, 284/80, 283/80, 285/80, 287/80, 288/80, 289/80, 292/80, 294/80, 293/80, 290/80, 295/80, 280/80, /80, /80, 330/80, /80, /80, /80, /80, /80, on the Original Side and Appeals Nos. F.M.A.T. Nos. 2941 to 2943 of 1980, 2305 of 1980, 2361 to 2363 of 1980, 2308 of 1980, 80 of 1982, 2623 to 2625 of 1980, 992 of 1986, 2722 and 2723 of 1980, 1064 of 1987, 820 to 824 of 1987, 2721 of 1980, 81 of 1982, 3501 of 1981, 779 of 1981, 2362 of 1984, 2363 of 1984, 3714 of 1984, 3185 of 1984, 2312 of 1980, 1226 of 1981, 231 of 1984 and 68 of 1984 on the Appellate Side and Writ Petition No. C.R. 6682 (W) of 1982 referred to the larger Bench by the learned single Judge involve common question of law and, therefore, are being decided by a common judgment.2. The propositions of law that fall for conside...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT38(HC)
A.K. Chatterjee, J.1. This revisional application seeking to quash a proceeding pending against the petitioners Under Section 25Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, for laying off the workmen of Messrs. Eastern Papers Mills Ltd. on 3.2.86 without previous permission of the specified Authority, punishable with imprisonment upto one month and/or fine upto Rs. 1000, on the ground that the cognizance was taken on 20.4.88 after the expiry of the period of limitation of one year as prescribed by Section 468, Cr. P.C. is resisted by the State mainly on the ground that the offence alleged being a continuing one, no question of limitation does arise, looking to the provision of Section 472 Cr. P.C. and as such the Learned Magistrate committed no illegality in taking cognizance on the date stated above.2. It appears that in the complaint the date on which the workmen were laid off has not been mentioned but there was no controversy that the lay off took place on 3.2.86 as stated in the revisional a...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Anik Pal Chowdhury
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)25ITD287(Kol.)
1. WTA No. 478 (Cal.)/1987 filed by the department against the assessee, Shri Anik Pal Chowdhury and WTA No. 440 (Cal.)/1986 filed by the assessee, Lyons Range Merchants Association, give rise to a common question, namely, whether the provision of Rule 1D of W.T. Rules, 1957 is directive or mandatory and whether valuation of unquoted shares of non-investment companies should be determined by following yield method or by adopting break-up value method as prescribed under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.2. In the case of the assessee, Shri Anik Pal Chowdhury, the dispute related to valuation of unquoted equity shares of three companies, namely, M/s. Nuddia Farms Ltd., M/s. Small Tools Mfg. Co. Ltd. and M/s.Washboria Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. Before the WTO the assessee claimed that the market value of unquoted shares of the aforesaid companies should be determined on the basis of the principles laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan [19721 86 IT...
Tag this Judgment!Mono Ranjan Dasgupta Vs. Suchitra Ganguly and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal14,92CWN929
A. M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. We dismiss this secpnd appeal as we find nothing to warrant our interference with the finding of the first Appellate Court that the suit for ejectment, giving rise to this appeal, is bad for non-service of notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.2. It would be trite to say that a notice of suit by the landlord to the tenant under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is a condition precedent to the institution of a suit by the landlord for ejectment of his tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13(1), except a suit based on the tenant's agreement or notice to quit as provided in Clauses (j) and (k) of Section 13(1). Such a notice in this case was sought to be served by the appellant-landlord to the respondent-tenant by registered post by addressing one copy of such notice to the tenanted premises and another copy to the tenant's alleged place of business and in para 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff-lan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »