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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Eastern Aviation and Industries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)29ITD363(Kol.)
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in directing that the speculation losses are to be treated as ordinary business losses.2. The assessee, is a limited company and derives income from share dealings and dividend. The assessee during the year under appeal disclosed share loss of Rs. 12,90,145 for which delivery was taken by it. The speculative loss was shown at Rs. 7,95,447. The Income Tax Officer discussed the nature of the business of the assessee and indicated that it was a dealer in shares and it was not an investor.He, accordingly, came to the conclusion that the business loss shown by the assessee at Rs. 12,90,145 could be taken as speculative loss in view of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and contended that it was an 'Investment Company' within the meaning of Section 109(ii) of t...
Som Datt Builders (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: (1989)29ITD495(Kol.)
Assessing Officer's order allowing deduction under section 80HHB, calculated at 25 per cent of profits from overseas projects as per audited accounts could not be said as erroneous and prejudicial on the ground that it should be calculated on gross total income.Commissioner not justified in holding that deduction under section 80HHB was required to be calculated with reference to gross total income of the assessee as contemplated in section 80AB.Also to current assessment years, though quantum of deduction has been changed to 50 per cent of profits.Revision under s. 263--ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL ORDER--Relief granted under section 91.Allowance of relief under section 91 was made when all the conditions were satisfied hence could not be said as erroneous and prejudicial order.Allowance of relief when all the conditions were satisfied could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue merely because the foreign governments have not determined the income of th...
Madan Pal Vs. Bashanti Kumar Shit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Cal223
ORDERJ.N. Hore, J. 1. C. R. No. 587 of 1983 and C. R. No. 588 of 1983 have been heard together. C. R. No. 587 of 1983 is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 11th Dec. 1982 passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Bankura in S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 1978 decreeing a sum of Rs. 720/- as arrear rent from Shraban 1378 B.S. to Ashar 1381 B.S. The subject matter of challenge in C.R. No. 588 of 1983 is the judgment and decree dt. 11th Dec. 1982 passed by the same Small Cause Court Judge, Bankura in S.C.C. Suit No. 28 of 1978 decreeing a sum of Rs. 720/-as arrear rents from Shraban 1381 B.S. to Ashar 1384 B.S.2. the opposite party filed the said 2 suits for recovery of arrear rent upon the allegations t hat one Purna Chandra chakraborty was the owner of the disputed premises pertaining to holding No. 148 of Kelhar Danga Mahalla within Bankura Municipality. He let out the premises to the O. P.. plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs, 457- payable according to the Bengalee Calendar Mont...
Proboth Chandra Malas Vs. Ratan Chandra Malas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT61(HC)
L.M. Ghosh, J.1. Title Suit No. 36 of the 3rd Court of the Munsif, Midnapore, was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of his title in the suit properties, for declaration that the record of right in the, name of the defendant No. 1 was wrong and for injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession. The plots involved are plots 234 and 235. The learned trial Court granted a decree in respect of Plot No. 234 only. The plaintiffs' claim of title in respect of Plot No. 235 was dismissed.2. Two appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs, Ratan and others filed Title Appeal No. 117 of 1975, because a part decree was granted. Title Appeal No. 185 of 1975 was filed by the defendant No. 2. The learned Appellate Court allowed Title Appeal No. 117 of 1975 and dismissed Title Appeal No. 185 of 1975.3. Now the second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. W. Howrah and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1989
Reported in: [1992]194ITR345(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J. 1. The following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), has been referred by the Tribunal:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the correct interpretation of the agreement dated March 29, 1961, between the assessee and New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd., the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the loss of Rs. 72,141 as business loss in the assessment year 1961-62 ?'2. The assessment is in respect of the assessment year 1961-62, for which the relevant accounting year was the year ended on March 31, 1961. The facts found by the Tribunal, as stated in its order, are as follows :'One of the activities of the assessee was acting as principal broker for the supply of jute to jute mills. The assessee entered into contracts with the jute mills in that respect. One of the jute mills was New Central Jute Mills Co. According to the contracts with the said jute mills, the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.N. Malhotra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR380(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 and the provisions of Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the interest and dividend income of Rs. 39,414 cannot be included in the hands of the assessee ?'2. The relevant facts as found by the Tribunal have been stated in paragraph 1 of the order of the Tribunal, which are as under :'There was a partial partition and the assessee got 3,010 shares of the said firm which included 2,660 shares which he had thrown into the hotchpotch. The assessee's contention was that he had received these shares in a different capacity, i.e., as karta of the smaller HUF consisting of himself, his wife and children. The Income-tax Officer, however, was of the view that Section 64(2)(c) was clearly attracted because the converted property after partition yielded income to the ...