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.
Sohanlal Rajgarhia and ors. Vs. Remington Rand of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT245(HC)
Majumdar, J. 1. This is an appeal from the Judgment and Order, dated June 15, 1984 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on an application of the appellant for an order that the defence of the defendant against the delivery of possession in the suit be struck out.2. The case of the appellants, who are the landlord, is that the respondent committed a default in payment of rent within the time prescribed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and by reason of such default the defence of the respondent in the suit should be struck out Under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It may be mentioned here that the appellants had filed a suit against the respondent for eviction on the grounds mentioned in the said Act.3. M/s. Khaitan & Co., Advocates-on-record for the plaintiffs in the suit (the appellants before us), enquired from M/s. Orr, Dignam & Co., Advocates-on-record for the defendant (the respondent before us), as...
Bimal Chandra Bhowmick Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT116(HC)
Manabendra Nath Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in Special Court Case No. 7 of 1978 in the Court of the Special Judge, Additional Court, Nadia.2. The accused-appellant Bimal Chandra Bhowmick (here in after referred to as appellant) stood charged Under Section 409 I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced under the said Section. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.3. The case of the prosecution-respondent State of West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as prosecution) is that Sri Tarak Chandra Chakraborly, Circle Inspector, Krishnagar (II) Circle informed the J.L.R.O. on 2.9.76 that the appellant, who was a 'Tahshildar of Block IV under the said Circle was asked to come to the Office of the J.L.R.O. on 31.8.76 for the purpose of checking of some rent receipts and other receipts books but he did not come. On 1.9.76 he ca...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Sri Sridhar Jew
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: (1989)84CTR(Cal)8,[1990]184ITR323(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The following two questions of law have been referred to this court 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 and on a proper interpretation of the deed of endowment dated April 28, 1896, the Tribunal was right in holding that the individual shares of the deities in whose favour the endowment had been made were not indeterminate or unknown and that accordingly the first proviso to Section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to the income from the property dedicated by the said deed ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Additional Commissioner was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessments were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1958-59 to 1972-7...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashoka Cement Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR443(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to get depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the sums of Rs. 3,43,387 and Rs. 5,51,377 ?'The year of assessment involved in this case is the assessment year 1957-58 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1957.2. The dispute is basically in respect of capitalisation of pre-production expenditure. The question of law, referred to this court, has already been concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Challa-palli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT : [1975]98ITR167(SC) . Following that decision, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.3. The Tribunal, in its statement of case, has pointed out that since the High Court had directed the Tribunal to refe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motilal and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR288(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 274(2) read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The dispute relates to a penalty order. The assessee filed a return of income on September 17, 1966, showing business income of Rs. 12,096 only. Thereafter, it filed a disclosure petition before the Commissioner and claimed exemption from penalty under Section 271 (4A) of the Act The disclosure related to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66 and covered a total amount of Rs. 1,20,000. It was accepted in the disclosure petition that the amount was introduced by the assessee in certain benami hundi loans in its books of account and that it represented its segregated profits from business. Before such disclosure came up for consideration,...
The Bank of Madura Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT1(HC)
Padma Khastgir, J.1. Mr. Justice B.C. Basak on August 23, 1985 passed an Order in the matter of Bank of Maduro Limited v. Union of India and Ors. The said order has been challenged in this appeal on two grounds. Firstly, although it had been recorded that the parties had no objection to an Order being passed by the Learned Judge, the Bank of Madura, the appellant before this Court, has seriously challenged that observation of the Court on the ground that the Bank did not authorise the learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the Basic either to consent or not to object to an Order that was going to be passed by the Learned Court below. Secondly, the appellant had contended that, in an application for setting aside the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal the Leaned Court below either should have allowed the application or dismissed the said application ; whereas the Learned Judge has modified the award to certain extent. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, Learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of ...
Netai Mohan Saha Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT44(Cal)
Padma Khastgir, J1. This appeal arises out of an order and judgment passed by Mr. Justice Bimal Chandra Basak on 6th May, 1980.The appellant before us has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the said judgment and order.2. After cessation of the territory formerly known as East Pakistan and after the emergence of the sovereign state of Bangladesh in or about 1971, the Government of India entered into a bilateral agreement with Bangladesh for import and export for a certain period, of specified commodities being the produce and or manufacture of either India an Bangladesh upto an overall monetary ceiling indicated against the commodities for the purpose of import and export between the two countries. Under various terms and conditions the arrangement had been arrived at the said trade agreement, namely bilateral trade agreement came to be known as 'Trade Against Limited Payment, Arrangements', commonly known as L.P.A. arrangement. Such arrangement initially was inforce and/or in eff...
Jaipuria Bros Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR208(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of shares of Ganesh Sugar Mills Ltd., Samala Collieries Ltd. and Shri Anand Sugar Mills Ltd., was in the nature of business deals ?' 2. This case has a little history. The relevant assessment year involved in this reference is the assessment year 1956-57 and the corresponding previous year is the calendar year 1955. The case had come up for hearing to this court on an earlier occasion and by an order dated July 29, 1980, the Tribunal was directed to file a supplementary statement of case. The direction was as under : We, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to consider these two aspects, namely, with what intention the shares had been acquired and with what intention the shares in question were sold to another member of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prem Chand Jute Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR238(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to this court 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 and on a proper construction of the relevant deed of lease, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the assessee from lease of its jute mill was assessable under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under Section 56 thereof ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 15,000 paid to an ex-employee is an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's income from the leasing out of the asses-see's jute mill ?' 2. The assessment year involved in this reference is the assessment year 1963-64, for which the relevant accounting period ended on April 14, 1963.3. Question No. 1 in this reference came up for consideration before this court in the case of the same assessee, CIT v. Prem Chand Jute Mills Ltd. : [...
Basantipur Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR261(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J.1. This case was adjourned on an earlier occasion. A notice was also served on Himatsingka & Co. but in spite of that, none has appeared even today. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that out of the total unexplained cash credits of Rs. 4,19,300 appearing in the company's business books for the relevant accounting period, the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 credited on the first day of its existence on incorporation represented its income from 'other sources' and not from 'business' ?' 2. The assessment year involved in this case is the assessment year 1966-67 for which the accounting period was August 10, 1964, to April 30, 1965. The findings of the Tribunal are that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 credited in the books of the company on the first day of its incorporation represented the assesse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »