Kolkata Court November 1989 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.
Peico Electronics and Electrical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)120
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 31st December, 1975 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,02,000 representating the actuarially valued liability for gratuity for the year 1975 was not an allowable deduction in computing that total income of the assessee company for the asst. yr. 1976-77 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company was not entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B of the Act in respect of the sum of Rs. 31,885 representing fees paid for the certification of goods ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holing that the surtax liability under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Machine Tools (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Cal)103,[1991]190ITR220(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,73,440 was allowable as a deduction from the income of the assessee ?' 2. The assessment year involved is the year 1974-75 for which the relevant year of account is the year ending December 31, 1973. The facts as stated in the statement of the case by the Tribunal are as under : The assessee is a limited company carrying on business in machine tools and other allied products. On October 31, 1973, the board of directors of the assessee-company in their meeting decided to increase the subscribed capital of the company by a sum of Rs. 8,62,250 by issue of 51,735ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each, in order to ensure that 60% of the increased subscribed capital would be in the hands of the Indian nationals. Evidently, this decision was taken to fulfil the aims and objects of the Foreig...
Parul Das Roy Vs. Anath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Cal1
ORDER1. It appears that S.C.C. Suit No. 3832 of 1978 disposed of by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta, by his judgment and order dated 19th March, 1984 was instituted under Section 41,Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1982 by the present petitioner being the Secretary of Manila Silpa Ashram and Tailoring College, a registered society situated at 80-82 Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta-4 against the present opposite party describing him as a mere licencee in respect of the disputed suit room. The defence was that the opposite party was the tenant of the same. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the ld. Judge concluded that the opposite party was not a tenant and that he was a mere licencee of the disputed premises. He dismissed the proceedings all the same holding that the petitioner was not competent to file the proceedings as she was not authorised to institute the same by the President or the members of the society. Hence this...
Rajesh Plastic Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT303(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present case is a glaring example as to how the respondents Union of India and its connected officers are not taking effective steps before this court for adjudication of the matter in dispute. It is no use of arguing at length before this court on behalf of the respondents without filing any affidavit and without controverting any allegation made by the petitioner and even without production of any record. The rule was issued on 27-8-81. Since then the respondents are found sleeping over their rights. The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the impugned Notification No. 205/F.No.355/141/80-Cus.-I, dated 16-10-1980 and/or the assessment made on the said bill of entry No. 1243, dated 3-12-1980 and to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 92,981.26p. wrongfully and illegally realised from it and to act according to law.2. It is alleged in the said notification dated 15-3-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›