Kolkata Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sky Room Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: [1992]195ITR763(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee can be treated as an industrial company ?'The assessment year involved is 1975-76. The assessee is engaged in business which consists wholly in processing goods, rendering them edible and then selling them in its restaurant as foodstuffs and eatables. The foodstuffs and eatables were prepared on the orders placed by customers. The dispute in this case is as to whether the company can be described as an industrial company. The Tribunal held that preparation of food articles in the case of the assessee would also amount to processing. It further held that the meaning of the word 'manufacture' or 'processing' should not be confined to non-edible stuff.2. The correctness of the conclusion of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Department. The definition of 'industrial com...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sijua (Jharriah) Electric Supply Co. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: [1991]189ITR784(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, to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reserve for contingencies of Rs. 4,07,707 and the reserve for debenture redemption of Rs. 12,80,000 should be taken into account for the purpose of computation of capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1975-76 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1975-76. The question has been gone into and decided in the assessee's own case in an earlier year's reference being the case of CIT v. Sijua (Jharriah) Electric Supply Co. Ltd. : [1986]158ITR332(Cal) . 3. Following that judgment, the first part of the question relating to reserve for contingency is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.4. So far as the reserve for debenture redemption is concerned, we direct the...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shew Bhagwan Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR126(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this court under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of tax paid by the assessee on the basis of voluntary disclosure of income under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, after the relevant valuation date was deductible in computing the net wealth of the assessee under Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 V'2. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66.3. In this case, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were of the view that, the tax liability on the disclosed income which was paid to the Reserve Bank of India on May 27, 1965, should be deducted for the purpose of valuation of the assessee's net wealth. The language of Section 2(m)(iii) is also quite clear.4. We fail to see how the amount of tax actually paid in respect of the relevant assessme...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lagan Jute Machinery Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR525(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') : 'For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share capital of Rs. 4 lakhs (rupees four lakhs) only issued to James Mackie and Sons Ltd. cannot be said to have been brought into existence by creating or increasing (by revaluation or otherwise) any book asset of the assessee-company within the meaning of Explanation 1 of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, then whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to pass the rectification order for excluding the above sum of Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lakhs) in the computation of ca...
income-tax Officer Vs. General Investment Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)29ITD1(Kol.)
1. These two appeals filed by the department are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The only common ground in both these appeals relating to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 states as below: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (Appeals), C-III erred in law and in facts in deleting the order passed by the ITO under Section 154 to give effect to the amendment of the provisions of Sections 80AA read with Section 80M of the IT Act, which was amended with retrospective effect from 1-4-1968.3. In the original assessments, the Income-tax Officer allowed relief under Section 80M of the Act on the gross dividends received by the assessee. In those assessments, there was no mention anywhere as to whether the assessee had incurred any expense for earning those dividends and if so, what was the said amount. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer rectified those original assessments under Section 154 of the Act. In the r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Carbide India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR634(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:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 9,21,233 was a reserve within the meaning of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and was rightly included by the Income-tax Officer in computing the capital under the said Schedule ?'2. The assessment year involved in this reference is the assessment year 1974-75, for which the relevant accounting period is the year ended on December 25, 1973.3. The facts of the case, as found by the Tribunal, are stated as under :The General Reserve as on the first day of the relevant previous year included a sum of Rs. 9,21,238 which was credited to the General Reserve in the year 1971. The assessee had, earlier, taken a dollar loan from the Export-Import Bank, Washington, and purchased plant and machinery for its 'Chemex' unit. The loan was being repaid ...
Sri Sri Madan Mohan Jiu Thakur and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT174(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the applicability of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in the absence of any requisite Notification Under Section 3(3) of the West Bengal Transferred Territories (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1958.2. By the said provision of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1958, it has been provided as follows :'3. Assimilation of State laws,--(1) All State laws which, immediately before the appointed day, extend to, or are in force in, the State of West Bengal, but do not extend to, or are not in force in, the transferred territories shall as from that day, extend to or, as the case may be, come into force in, the transferred territories:Provided that the State law specified in Schedule I shall extend to the transferred territories subject to the amendment specified in the schedule.(2) All State laws which, immediately before the appointed day, are in force in the while or any part of the tran...
Biswanath Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Cal)138,[1991]189ITR687(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The question referred by the Tribunal is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the share income of the assessee from the firm, Credit Transactors, for the period ending April 14, 1967, considered and allocated in the assessment of the firm for the assessment year 1967-68 was assessable in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69 ?'The reference is under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute is about the correctness of the year of accounting in which the share of profit of a partnership firm of which the assessee is a member is included.2. In the statement of case, the facts are stated as under :'The assessment year involved is 1968-69. The assessee is a partner of Credit Transactors. The assessee maintained accounts and the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 ended on December 31, 1967. The previous year of Credit Transactors rele...
Dr. N.K. Brahmachari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR507(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 Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the accrued interest on advances to Brahmachari Research Institute (P.) Ltd. amounting to Rs. 41,534 for the assessment year 1971-72 and Rs. 43,240 for the assessment year 1972-73 was the assessee's income liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In this case, the assessment years involved are 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee had made various advances to Brahmachari Research Institute (P.) Ltd. at interest payable at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. No interest on these advances were shown by the assessee in his income-tax return for the relevant assessment years. The case of the assessee is that as and when the interest was received, he disclosed this in his return. As no interest was received in these years, he did not show this as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surajbhan Mahawar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR400(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.Income-tax Reference No. 379 of 1979 :1. The following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that in computing the penalty leviable under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the two sums of Rs. 8,433 each paid on December 30, 1970, and March 29, 1971, respectively, should be construed as 'sums paid in advance under Chapter XVII-C' within the meaning of the Explanation to Clause (i) of the said section ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1971-72.3. The dispute is about the payment of advance tax and liability to pay penalty for failure of payment of advance tax. The Tribunal has found that the assessee had made payments of advance tax on December 30, 1970, and March 29, 1971.4. The contention of the Department before the Tribunal was that the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »