Kolkata Court March 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Sunil Krishna Ganguly
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD137(Kol.)
1. The revenue is the appellant. The assessee is the respondent.Impugned order is of the AAC of Income-tax, Asansol. It was passed on September 3, 1986. The relevant assessment year is 1985-86.2. The only ground raised is that the AAC of Income-tax erred in law as well as on facts in directing the ITO to allow the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of purchase of National Savings Certificates worth Rs. 12,000, although the source of that investment was out of income not chargeable to tax during the year.3. The learned departmental representative submitted that during the year the assessee purchased National Savings Certificates for Rs. 12,000 out of the recurring deposit that matured, that its source was a known one but out of an income which was not chargeable to tax during the year and that the assessee's claim of the said certificates under Section 80C of the Act could not, therefore, be entertained by the ITO.4. On the other hand...
Biswanath Khan and ors. Vs. Prafulla Kumar Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Cal275,[1989]66CompCas452(Cal),92CWN1017
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. A Company, which was a thika tenant under the plaintiff-appellants in respect of the disputed land, has been dissolved Would the tenancy stand extinguished and the land revert to the landlords or would the tenancy vest in the State by escheat or as bona vacantia? These are the questions that have arisen for our consideration in this second appeal and having considered them with the very able assistance from the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to return a negative answer to the first question and an affirmative answer to the second.2. So far this Court is concerned, it was observed by P.B. Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) in U.N. Mandal's Estate Pvt. Ltd., : AIR1959Cal493 that 'the assets of a dissolved Company are not without owner' as 'the State takes them over'. It was pointed out further that though there is no provision in the Indian Companies Act, corresponding to Section 354 of the English Companies Act of 1948, providing expressly tha...
Girindra Nath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Soumen Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Cal375
L.M. Ghosh, J.1. The judgment we render now governed two appeals being F. A. No. 525 of 1474 and F.A. No. 555 of 1974. Two cross objections have also been filed. F.A. No. 525 of 1974 a rises out of the judgment and decree in T.S. No. 65 of 1971 (previously numbered asT.S. No. 107 of 1957) of the 7th Court of Subordinate Judge. Alipore. F.A. No. 555 of 1974 arises out of the judgment and decree in T.S. No. 66 of 1971 (previously numbered as T.S. No. 115 of 19591 of the same court. It may be mentioned that the learned Subordinate Judge heard both the suits analogously and disposed of them by one common judgment. Title Suit No. 65 of 1971 was dismissed on contest. Title Suit No. 66of 1971 was decreed in part on contest. Manindra Nath Mukherjee was the appellant in F.A. No. 525 of 1974. The heirs of Sidheswari Debi have filed the appeal. F.A. No. 555 of 1974.2. Title Suit No. 65 of 1971 was filed by the plaintiff, Manindra Nath Mukherjee. for partition of the suit properties and for accoun...
Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Cal)31,[1989]178ITR74(Cal)
ORDER--Part of order not considered by AAC or Tribunal--Did not merged with appellate order.HELD:If the appeal court could not have dealt with apart of the order of the lower court because it was non-appealalbe, then the question of merger of the non-appealable part of the order in the appellate order cannot arise at all. But even if the entire order is appealable but in appeal is perferred only on certain issues and the appellate order has not trvelled beyond those issues which have actually been raised before it, cannot be said that even in such a case, the lower cours order has entirely merged in the appeal court's order and lost its identity. The ITO's assessment order survived in respect of the matters which were not covered by the appellate order and were left untouched. The revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under s. 263 could be exercised on those aspects of the assessment matters which were left untouched by the AAC.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 S.C. Sen, J.1. The petitio...
Gobinda Chandra Manna and anr. Vs. Paresh Chandra Pramanik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT320(HC),92CWN1014
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. These Revisional applications are directed against Judgment and Order, dated 12th December, 1986 passed by the Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Uluberia acting as the Appellate Authority in R.A.L. Appeal cases Nos. 51 and 52 of 1983-84 affirming those, dated 21/28-7-1983, passed by the Special Officer in R.A.L. Case Nos. 3 and 4 of 1982 whereby the applications for restoration made on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 had been allowed. The aforesaid appeals and the applications were heard analogously. The transfers were made on 8-10-1968 by registered deeds with, inter alia, a recital therein that the sales were being made for improvement of the business of the transferer. The present applicant is a subsequent transferee from opposite party No. 2, the original transferee.2. Upon consideration of the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties, the following findings of fact do not call for any interference, namel...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Birendra Nath Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT136(HC)
Pratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The respondent was appointed by the appellant for loading, unloading and transporting foodgrains at the godowns of the appellant at Cossipore and Grey Street, Calcutta, for a period of two years from 7.3.69 to 6.3.71. The contract did not contain any term guaranting that the appellant would allot any definite volume of work to the respondent every month but the appellant was under the obligation to allot work for which the respondent would be entitled to a minimum remuneration per month. Clauses XIV (a) and XIV (b) of the Tender contained the aforesaid terms. At the time of execution of the instant contract, the amount of money to be paid by the appellant to the respondent by way of minimum remuneration was left blank in clause XIV(b) of the contract. The appellant allotted work to the respondent upto 29.3.70 and the respondent carried, loaded and unloaded the same and for the works done, became entitled to receive Rs. 30,60,746.09p. The appellant duly paid the...
Dhaulagiree Polyolefins Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC183(Cal)
Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. This is an application made by Dhaulagiree Polyolefins Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying, that the order dated 5th August, 1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle, on the 5th August, 1986, rejecting the application of the petitioner No. 1 dated 19th October, 1985, filed on 30th October, 1985, for renewal of 'eligibility certificate' under Rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, be quashed and/or set aside. The application of the petitioner No. 1 was for renewal of the eligibility certificate (hereinafter also referred to as 'E.C.'). The grounds on which the application for renewal of E.C. can be rejected are specified in Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3(66) of the said Rules. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears, that the Assistant Commissioner, has rejected the said application of the petitioner on grounds, totally extraneous, to the grounds mentione...
Hari Patbandha and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1614
Sankar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Hari Patbandha alias Malu, Subhash Dhal alias Neta Puma Chandra Patbandha, Haribandhu Thayal, Pratap Patbandha and Sk. Subrati, the six appellants before us, were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore, on the following charges:First that you along with 2/3 others on or about 8-10-82 corresponding to 21st Aswin, 1387 B.S. at Gameria Mouja, P.S. Nayagram, were members of an unlawful assembly and did, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., show of criminal force, to commit murder etc. committed the offence of rioting and at that time were armed with deadly weapons to wit, tabla, tangi, lathi etc. and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148, I.P.C.Secondly, that you on or about the same day and same place were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object some of the members of the said assembly did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Sristhidhar Bera, which offence...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dilip Kumar Debnath and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ133Cal
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th February, 1988 passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Order No. 6262(W) of 1986. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge has set aside the impugned order of dismissal passed by the appellants against the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1, Dilip Kumar Debnath, by invoking power under Standing Order No. 29. The said Standing Order No. 29 authorised the disciplinary authority to terminate the service and/or dismiss an employee without holding any enquiry in an appropriate case after recording reasons therefor. It may be noted that similar provision had been taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Hindusthan Steel Limited and Anr. v. Hindusthan Steel Ltd. and Anr. reported in 1985-I-LLJ-267. The Supreme Court has held that such provision authorising the disciplinary authority to dismiss an employee without holding any enquiry whatsoever and without affording a reasonable op...
Gopalji Shaw Vs. Income-tax Officer, d Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR554(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner, the karta of a Hindu undivided family, commonly known as Gopalji Shaw, has challenged the criminal proceeding initiated under Section 276CC(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the said family by the Income-tax Officer, 'D' Ward, District IV(I), Calcutta. The facts are briefly stated hereafter.2. For the assessment year 1982-83 relevant to the financial year ending March 31, 1982, the said family filed its returns of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961, on February 15, 1985, showing a total income of Rs. 23,810 only. At the time of filing the return for the said year, the petitioner also paid the tax of Rs. 4,645, being the tax on self-assessment under Section 140A of the said Act, on February 13, 1985. On February 15, 1985, the said family also filed its returns of income under the said Act for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.3. The first respondent, being the Income-tax Officer, 'D' Ward, District IV(I), C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »