Kolkata Court May 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.
Orient General Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: [1994]209ITR490(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper construction of law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that interest of Rs. 43,907 paid to the Income-tax Department was not allowable in computing the total income of the assessee ?'2. The dispute relates to the claim for Rs. 43,007 paid by the assessee as interest to the Income-tax Department under Section 139 as a deduction in computing its total income. The Income-tax Officer referred to the case of River Valley Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Agrl. ITO [1974] Tax LR 805 (Gau) and disallowed the claim. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) further referred to Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd v. CIT : [1960]39ITR751(Cal) and National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CIT : [1978]113ITR252(Cal) in which the Calcu...
Hada Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR371(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 88,111 being the casual leave payments provided in the books of the assessee for the financial year 1974-75 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 5,30,476 being the gratuity calculated on the basis of actuarial valuation was, when no provision for gratuity was made in the books of the assessee for the year under consideration, deductible in the computation of the total income of the assessee for the year ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that, under the First Industrial Tribunal Award, 1958, the assessee was under the statutory obligation to make the payment to its clerical employees and others by way of casual leave payment. It is also an...
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR709(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1974-75 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Special Export Promotion Scheme, the receipt of Rs. 1,40,864 arising out of the transfer ofimport entitlements are capital receipts and not revenue receipts assessable to tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reimbursement of out of pocket expenses amounting to Rs. 21,000 actually incurred by the directors of the assessee-company is an entertainment expenditure which falls within the mischief of Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in so holding whether the Tribunal acted perversely ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of reimbursement of expenses amountin...
Indian Cable Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT72(HC),1990(26)ECC261
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to act in accordance with law and to refund the sum of Rs. 4,65,596.37 which has been collected as Customs Duty without the authority of law.2. The. facts are briefly as follows :The petitioner No. 1 carries on a business of manufacture of sales of electric wires and cables and the company for its said business owns and operates a factory at Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar and another factory at Pune, in the State of Maharastra. For manufacturing the aforesaid wires and cables the petitioner company requires PTFE tape as one of the raw materials (hereinafter referred to as tape for the sake of brevity). The petitioner procured the said supply either from the internal market or by importing from abroad. The petitioners state that prior to 1975 customs duty was levied at the rate prescribed under the Indian Tariff Act, 1954 under the Tariff Item No. 82(3)(b). T...
Darjeeling Consolidated Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR493(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss on account of the ropeway machinery blown off in the storm was not a loss allowable under Section 45 read with Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The facts leading to this reference are in a narrow compass.2. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed that the ropeway machinery belonging to the company was blown off in a storm and could not be recovered from the hills as recovering it was considered to be uneconomical. The assessee-company claimed Rs. 2,07,900 as revenue loss under Section 32(1A)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer found that the provision of Section 32(1A)(ii) came into force from April 1, 1971, and was not applicable to the yea...
Anil Kumar Kundu and anr. Vs. Netai Chandra Boral
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT310(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. This is an application for revocation of the probate Under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.2. The facts are briefly as follows :A probate has been granted by this Court in Matter No. 38 of 1987 on the basis of the application filed by one Netai Chandra Boral alias Netai Chandra Das praying for a probate on the last Will and testament of Subodh Chandra Boral.3. The said Netai Chandra Boral, who is the respondent in this application, applied for probate on the basis of the Will left by Subodh Chandra Boral alleging that he is the adopted son of Late Subodh Chandra Boral and that Late Subodh Chandra Boral by his last Will and testament dated 13th January, 1980 bequeathed all his right as trustee and Shebait of the debuttar estate mentioned in the Will in his favour and has also appointed him the executor under the Will and on the basis thereof he was applying for probate. In the said application, Netai Chandra Boral alleged that he being the adopted son, ...
Indian Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Cus., Ex. and Gold (Control) Appellate Tri.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: 1990(49)ELT342(Cal)
Monoranjan Mallick, J. 1. The Indian Cable Co. Ltd. in the writ petition prays for a declaration that the purported assessment of the imported cable impregnating non-drawing N.D. 354 under Tariff Item No. 38.01/19(1) of the Customs Tariff Act of 1975 is without jurisdiction, that the said compound containing 70% by weight Petroleum Mineral Oil was assessable under the Tariff Item No. 27.10(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Respondents are bound to refund the excess amount realised tinder Item No. 38.01/19(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and for a writ of Mandamus for directing the Respondents to forthwith refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 44,446.38 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum being the excess duty realised by the respondents without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 2. The facts are briefly as follows : The petitioner is a well-known manufacturing company having its factories in diverse places and its registered office at 9, Hare Street, Calcut...
Deepayan Chatterjee Vs. Papiya Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC75
Shamsuddin Ahmed, J.1. The appellant-petitioner filed a suit for divorce and for declaration of nullity against the respondent-wife with leave of court under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act as the statutory period of one year did not expire from the date of solemnization of the marriage. The petitioner wanted to make out a case of exceptional hardship and the leave was granted by the Court. The petitioner mainly based his case and sought relief under Section 12 and Section 13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He disclosed in his petition that the parties were married on 9th July, 1985 according to the Hindu rites. The negotiation of marriage between the parties was made through 'Jogajog' a Marriage Bureau. The particulars supplied to that office of 'Jogajog' by the respondent or on her behalf with regard to her age, educational qualification, family status and other particulars were all false and they suppressed the real position and thereby practising fraud obtained the consent o...
Bijoli Grill Spencer's Products Vs. Spencer Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT24(HC)
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. In this interlocutory application the petitioner has prayed for an order of injunction restraining the Spencer Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and one Amar Dutta from selling and offering for sale or advertising or utilising otherwise the trade name and mark 'Spencer's' and the labels or any colourable imitations thereof in relation to the mineral and aerated water and other non-alcoholic beverages in any manner whatsoever.2. On the factual score it appears that one Sm. Bhakti Dutta carried on business of manufacture and sale of mineral, aerated water and other nonalcoholic beverages under the trade mark and name 'Spencer's'. The mark 'Spencer' was registered on 6th October 1942 bearing Registration No. 6108 and the register maintained by the Registrar of Trade Marks recorded 'Sm. Bhakti Dutta' as the registered proprietor for the mark.3. On the 1st September 1961 Sm. Bhakti Dutta assigned the trade mark, trade name and label in favour of 'Spencer's Aerated Water Fac...
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. Banerjee and Banerjee and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT10(HC),94CWN359
P.K. Majumdar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 30th January, 1988 passed by Joint Arbitrators, K.K Mishra and S.P. Roy Chowdhury on several grounds mentioned in the petition.2. By a letter of intent dated 15th March, 1984, the petitioner awarded contract to the respondent for earth work, concreting, masonary and other allied work at various elevation in the main power house for Farakka Super Thermal Project of S.T.P.C. at Farakka. A formal agreement to that effect was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 12th May, 1984. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause. Disputes and differences arose between the parties with regard to settlement of the final bill of respondent No. 1 and accordingly the said disputes or differences were referred to arbitration before the Joint Arbitrators, K. K. Mishra, the then General Manager (Projects) of the Steel Authority of India at Bokaro Steel Plant, nominated by the petitioner and D.P. Roy Chowdhury, Ret...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »