Kolkata Court February 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.
Jaisree Pal and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal253
ORDER1. In this writ application 10 students, thorugh their respective guardians, studying in Higher Secondary Science Course, at the material time, have challenged certain action of the Principal, Midnapore College i.e. respondent No. 2 when admission of these students in the said college in Class XI, Science Group, for Session 1987-88 was found irregular and when the Secretary (Examination) West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education referred to consider a representation of the students and that of college to regularise their admission.2. On 22nd September, 1988, this court passed an interim order prohibiting and restraining respondents concerned from chan ging and/or for directing the petitioners to give option for changing science groups to arts groups in the Class XII final examination. Before considering claim of the petitioners, facts, transpire from the affidavit in opposition filed by the Principal, Midnapore College, i.e. respondent No. 2, are worth mentioning.3. On 2nd...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. A. K. Basu.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Cal)155
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The following question of law has been referred to by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act :'Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case, in view of the Supreme Court decision in CWT vs. Bishwanath Chatterjee (1976) 103 ITR 53 & in particular, the Supreme Courts observations in (1970) 76 ITR 679 to the effect The doctrine of throwing into the common stock is a doctrine peculiar to the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, the Tribunals finding that the question whether the three brothers governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law could elect to form an HUF hotchpot was not a debatable proposition beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, was correct ?'The relevant assessment year is the asst. yr. 1976-77 for which the accounting period is the year ended 31st March, 1976.The facts as stated by the Tribunal are as under.2. The dispute relates to the income of the assessee from his interest in house at 74, Ashutosh Mukerjee Road, Calcutta. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sofremines (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR67(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The following three questions have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts of Rs. 7,12,268 and Rs. 9,90,000 were not liable to be included in the assessee's total income of the previous year relevant to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 respectively on the ground that the assessee had divested itself of the right at the very inception of those amounts ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the agreement dated September 2, 1969, entered into between Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and the assessee, the Tribunal was right in holding that, during the relevant years, there was provision of technical know-how within the meaning of Clause (i) of Section 80MM(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee is entitled to relief...
National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Cal)186,[1989]180ITR275(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J.1. Three questions have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the reimbursement of medical expenses by the assessee to its employees did not result in the provision of any benefit, amenity' or perquisite within the meaning of Section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is not liable to be taken into account in computing the disallowance to be made under Section 40(a)(v) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 21,60,000 in full on the basis of the Circular No. 6-P(LXXVI-66) of 1968, dated July 6, 1968, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the assessee's claim afresh in th...
Banik Rubber Industries Vs. Sree D.B. Rubber Industries and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal225
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The petitioner Banik Rubber Industries is seeking the cancellation of a trade mark which has been registered by the Registrar of Trade Marks, under Registration No. 377580 in Class 25 in the Trade Marks Register. The petitioner is also seeking the rectification of the register of trade marks by removal of the aforesaid entry, from theregister of trade marks, in favour of the respondent No. 1, Sree K. B. Rubber Industries.2. The case of the petitioner inter alia is that the firm in the name of Eastern Rubber Works had got registration in respect of two trade marks. One was the trade mark bearing Registration No. 232909 dated 27th December, 1965 in Class 25 in the Trade Mark Register in the name of 'Ajanta Hawai' in respect of Chappals and soles and straps. The other tade mark is the trade mark bearing No. 242561 dated 7th June, 1967 in Class 25 in the Trade Mark Register under the name of 'Mugu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindusthan Steel Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Cal)191,[1989]179ITR213(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The assessee prayed for reference of as many as four questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the Tribunal has referred only two questions which are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hindusthan Steel Ltd., whose liability to pay the income-tax demand raised against Mr. L. Nemethy arose not under the operation of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but by virtue of the guarantee bond dated April 25, 1969, under Section 230(1), could not be held as an assessee within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thus being entitled to the right of appeal under Section 246 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the notice under Section 148 was not properly served and the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were valid ?'2. This question has been reframed by us and will read as under :'Whether, o...
India Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Cal)81,[1989]178ITR649(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The assessee has sought for reference of as many as three questions but the Tribunal has referred only one question which was not exactly in terms of the language of the three questions raised by the assessee. The Tribunal has reframed the question and this question covers the entire controversy in this case. The question referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,13,000 being the excess over the limit of Rs. 72,000 laid down in the aforesaid provisions of the Act ?'2. The facts of the case as found by the Tribunal have been stated as under :'The assessee is a company and the relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The corresponding accounting period ended on March 31, 1972. The...
Sachi Dulal Saha Vs. Saraswati Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT33(HC),94CWN320
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. This is an appeal from judgment and decree, dated 24th August, 1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on an application of the propounder for a probate of the Will, dated 29th June, 1979 executed by Sushila Bala Saha, mother of the propounder.2. By this judgment and decree the learned Trial Judge granted probate in favour of the propounder to the said Will and testament of Sushila Bala Saha, dated 29th June, 1979,3. The said Sushila Bala Saha died on 16th March, 1980. She executed her last Will and Testament in English language and character oil 29th June, 1979 wherein she appointed the propounder Sm. Saraswati Mondal, her daughter, as executrix of the said Will and Testament. Under the said Will the executrix left behind her estate in favour of her daughter Sm. Saraswati Mondal, who is the respondent before us. She is the sole legatee under the said Will. On intestacy the properties left behind by the testatrix would have devolved on Sri Sachi ...
Sushila Bala Saha Vs. Saraswati Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Cal166
ORDERPrabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. This is an appeal from judgment and decree dated 24th August, 1982 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on an application of the propounder for a probate of the Will dated 29th June, 1979 executed by Sushila Bala Saha, mother of the propounder.2. By this judgment and decree the learned Trial Judge granted probate in favour of the propounder to the said Will and testament of Sushila Bala Saha dated 29th June, 1979.3. The said Sushila Bala Saha died on 16th March, 1980. She executed her last Will and Testament in English language and character on 29th June, 1979 wherein she appointed the propounder Smt. Saraswati Mondal, her daughter, as executrix of the said Will and Testament. Under the said Will the executrix left behind her estate in favour of her daughter Smt. Saraswati Mondal, who is the respondent before us. She is the sole legatee under the said Will. On intestacy the properties left behind by the testatrix would have devolved on Sri Sac...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Cal)356,[1990]184ITR542(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,365 incurred in connection with the suit against the auditor constituted an allowable deduction in computing the profits of the assessee's business ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been justified in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 50,000 made to Bomas Ltd. did not bring into existence an advantage of enduring nature and did not constitute an expenditure of capital nature ?' 2. In this case, the assessment year involved is 1963-64 for which the relevant accounting period is the year ended on December 31, 1962.3. So far as the first question is concerned, the issue relates to an item of Rs. 12,365 which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the g...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »