Kolkata Court July 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.
Probhat Chandra Kanrar and ors. Vs. Sm. Rani Bala Kanrar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal202,(1989)2CALLT18(HC)
L.M. Ghosh, J.1. In the 3rd Court of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition. The properties are set out in Schedules 'A' and 'B' of the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in part.2. Not accepting the judgment and decree, some of the defendants have preferred this appeal.3. It is not disputed that one Surendra Nath Kanrar was the common ancestor of the parties. There is also no dispute as regards the majority of the plots, that those plots belonged to late Surendra Nath Kanrar. Surendra Nath Kanrar left four sons namely, Ram Chandra Kanrar, Lakshman Chandra Kanrar, Bharat Chandra Kanrar and Netai Chandra Kanrar. Netai Chandra Kanrar was the plaintiff 1. On his death, his heirs have been substituted. The plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the heirs of Lakshman Chandra Kanrar. The defendants 1 to 10 are the heirs of Ram Chandra Kanrar and the defendants 11 to 16 are the heirs of Bharat Chandra Kanrar. It is also not disputed that the four sons of R...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Budge Budge Amalgamated Mills Ltd. (No. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR375(Cal)
Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner, West Bengal-III, 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 1965-66 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to Explanation 1 to Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, there was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 13 of the said Act and whether the Income-tax Officer was entitled to make an order thereunder ?'2. The facts are that in the original surtax assessment order passed on February 28, 1967, the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs in the capital computation. Subsequently, action was taken under Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, on the ground that the said sum of Rs. 18 lakhs was wrongly included in the capital computation and the mistake was apparent from the record. After a show-cause notice tothe a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR440(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(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 50,000 paid as compensation was an expenditure of a revenue nature and was an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts relating to this application are that the assessee, who is the owner of the collieries known as Pure Shampoor Collieries, appointed one Mr. Mehta for proper and efficient management of the said collieries by an agreement dated March 2, 1954. The agreement was effective from March 1, 1954, for a period of five years. The agreement was renewed and was operative till January 1, 1964. However, before the expiry of the second period of five years, the agreement was terminated on February 2...
Ota Falloons Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees at the Port of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC298,1992(61)ELT185(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The Rule was issued on 29-5-1981 at the instance of the writ petitioners who have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the circular dated 4-4-1981 issued by the Manager, Traffic Operation, Haldia Dock Complex as regards the imposition of penal rate at three times of the ordinary rate of rent on cargo not cleared within the month from the date of landing at Haldia General Cargo Berth. The copy of the said circular is annexed to the writ petition marked by letter 'B'. It appears from the said circular that the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust has approved the recovery of triple rent on cargo at Haldia if not cleared within one month from the date of landing and the order will take effect on and from 1-4-1981. While issuing the rule an interim order of injunction was granted in terms of prayer (f) by restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the approval of the Chairman, C...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. James Finlay and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: [1990]183ITR645(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of income-tax, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the assessment year 1969-70 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the proceedings under Section 147(b) Of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not according to law ?'2. The facts are that the assessee, James Finlay and Co. Ltd., is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and it carries on business in India having branches in Calcutta and Bombay. The Calcutta office acts as agent for various tea and steamer companies incorporated outside India as also for other overseas principals. The Bombay office acts as agent for Lloyds' insurance companies and steamer companies. Both the offices deal in sundries, electrical and other goods. The Bombay branch has in the course of its business advanced in 1963 a sum of Rs. 7.50 la...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anniversary Investments Agencies Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Cal)91,[1989]175ITR199(Cal)
A.K. Sengupta, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner, West Bengal-IV, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the assessment year 1973-74 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in apportioning the total expenditure incurred by the assessee as between the several heads of income and treating the appropriate portion thereof as expenditure against the dividend income and in modifying the assessment accordingly?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee formerly known as 'Birds Investment Ltd.', is a limited company whose income was from interest on securities, business of purchase and sale of shares, dividends and interest, etc. The Income-tax Officer held that the interest paid and part of the other expenses which were claimed as a deduction against the business of purchase and sale of share...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sriram Industries Distributors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR341(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner, West Bengal-III, 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 1969-70.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the deed dated the twenty-sixth day of December in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a genuine firm had come into existence and the same was entitled to registration ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are that the assessee-firm filed an application on December 30, 1967, for registration for the assessment year 1968-69. The partnership consisted of 13 partners and one minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On a perusal of the partnership deed, the Income-tax Officer found that clause 8 of the deed provided that the capital was to be contributed by all the partners including the minor and on fa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rallis India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR351(Cal)
Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner, 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 1968-69 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses on repairs of the premises taken by the assessee on rent were a permissible deduction ?'2. The facts are that the assessee claimed Rs. 24,738 as expenses for repairing of rented flats as a permissible deduction. The assessee had made repairs to the flats which it had taken on rent for the purpose of its employees. The Income-tax Officer held that as the repairs had been made to the flats which were not owned by the assessee but had been taken on rent by the assessee, the deduction claimed was not allowable.3. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the repair expenses amounted to business expenses as the premises in which repairs had been effected ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kusum Products Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR557(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. The only question of law which has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the assessment year 1972-73, at the instance of the Commissioner is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the asses-see's claim for deduction of Rs. 29,372 being the expenditure incurred for replacing machinery of United Vegetable Mfrs. Ltd. ?'2. It is necessary to state briefly the relevant facts which have given rise to this dispute. The assessee took a lease of the factory of United Vegetable Mfrs. Ltd. for 15 years under a lease deed dated June 29, 1961. The lessor-company reserved the right to terminate the lease after the expiry of five years or before for the purpose of its own use by giving three months' notice to the assessee. The said lease was to commence from November 1, 1961, as per the lease deed dated June 29, 1961, but ...
Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science Vs. Dr. Chittaranjan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT4(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present revisional application has been filed by the defendant/petitioner Indian Association for Cultivation of Science challenging Order No. 39, dated 22.8.1985 passed by the Learned Munsif, Second Additional Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 23 of 1982 (since renumbered as Title Suit No. 17 of 1985). The Opposite Party/Plaintiff has filed the aforesaid Title Suit for a declaration that the election of the President and other two ordinary members of the Defendant Society in 1981 is illegal and not binding and for a further declaration that ballots sent by the members of the Defendant Society either by person or through duly authorised messengers are valid votes and in conformity with the customs, usages and conventions of ages and for a decree of declaration that the Annual General Meeting scheduled to be held on 25th January, 1986 is void and against Rules and Regulations of the Defendant Society and for other, consequential reliefs as stated in the plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »