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.
J.N. Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC106,1991(53)ELT543(Cal)
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list. Filing of the paper book is dispensed with and the undertaking given in that behalf is discharged.2. The appeal arises out of a Writ Petition which was directed against an order dated March 16, 1988 passed by the Calcutta Bench of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on an application for dispensing with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty in dispute in appeal. The present appeal has been brought in view of the summary dismissal of the Writ Petition by the Trial Court.3. The following facts are not in dispute :(1) The original demand for excise duty was raised in respect of precipitated chalk manufactured by the appellant.(2) The case of the appellant before the competent authority was that precipitated chalk was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/55 dated April 29,1...
Anglo-India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: 1990LC382(Calcutta),1989(43)ELT11(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji. J.1. The present Rule was issued at the instance of the writ petitioner Anglo-India Jute Mills Co. Ltd., praying, inter alia, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the notice to show cause dated 16-3-1982 and all proceedings relating thereto and not to levy and/or demand any Central Excise duty from the petitioner on the making of polythene films by the manufacturers out of granules supplied by the petitioner and for other consequential reliefs by way of retaining the respondents from giving any effect to and/or taking step whatsoever pursuant thereto and/or in furtherance of the said notice to show cause and the proceeding relating thereto and/or from levying and/or demanding any duty from the petitioner.2. It is stated that the petitioner company carries on business of manufacturing and dealing in jute products. It is further stated that one of the items of jute manufactures manufactured by the petitioner a...
Tarun Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1989
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ30Cal
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated December 9, 1987 passed by the then Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, under Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against such compulsory retirement which was rejected. At the time when the said Order was passed, the petitioner was holding the post of Senior Executive Engineer. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said Order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules is illegal and without jurisdiction and the said Rule 56(J) has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is further contended that the said Order has been passed maliciously behind the back of the petitioner without observing the fundamental principles of natural justice, fair play and equitable justice and particularly overlooking and ignorin...
Ganesh Properties Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1989
Reported in: [1993]202ITR434(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. These two references--one under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the other under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922--relate to the assessment year 1959-60. Since both the references arise out of the same order of the Tribunal relating to one and the same assessment year, we propose to dispose of the two references by one judgment.2. Shortly stated, the facts are as follows :During the year under consideration, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 3,79,441 on which income-tax was assessed at Rs. 2,16,012 and as such the available surplus was Rs. 1,63,429. The assessee, however, declared dividend of Rs. 1,25,000. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee was a company whose business consisted wholly in the holding of investments and therefore 100% dividend ought to have been declared. Accordingly, he held that Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was clearly applicable in this case. The assessee ex...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Assurance Society Ltd. (Now Nat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1989
Reported in: [1993]201ITR668(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of has has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1971-72.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the levy of penalty underSection 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had lost his jurisdiction over this-case after the omission of Section 274(2) from the statute book with effect from April 1, 1976 ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that during the assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee's claim of commission payment of about Rs. 12.13 lakhs was not supported by adequate evidence. The Income-tax Officer also found that some notices issued under Section 131 and letters written under Section 133(b) to the alleged recipients of the commission were either returned unserved or there was no compliance with the terms ...
Royal Calcutta Turf Club Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1989
Reported in: [1991]188ITR352(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, relates to the assessment year 1971-72.2. The facts leading to this reference are shortly stated hereunder :For the year under consideration, the assessee debited a total amount of Rs. 1,66,585 as expenditure on 'refreshments' in the account styled as 'non-members profit and loss account'. The details of the expenditure furnished to the Income-tax Officer by the assessee are as follows : Rs.(1)Refreshment served to -- (a)Stewards, secretary and others including donors of cups and certain VIPs.83,518 (b)Permanent and race day officials19,488 (c)Permanent and race day officials other than officials.34,300(2)Morning tea to officials attending to track work in the morning and trainers and jockeys exercising the horses.13,260(3)Refreshments served on the occasion of the Turf Invitation Cup Race held on 6th March, 1971.7,300(4)Expenditure on annual party thrown to owners, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sogani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR312(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1976-77, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest of Rs. 11,480 payable to the minor son, Master Rajesh Sogani, by the firm, Messrs. Anil Kumar Mahendra Kumar, cannot be included in the income of the assessee-father under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts shortly stated are that the assessee's minor son, Master Rajesh Sogani, was admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firm, Messrs. Anil Kumar Mahendra Kumar. During the year under appeal, the said minor's share in the firm was determined at Rs. 8,599 and interest payable by the firm to the minor on the loans advanced by him was worked out at Rs. 11,480. The Income-tax Officer, while computing the assessee's total income, included both the amoun...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eskaps (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: [1991]191ITR674(Cal)
Ajtt K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1976-77, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that expenditure of Rs. 9,487 not being an entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was an admissible deduction under Section 37(1) of the said Act is computing the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1976-77 ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a company carrying on the business as Cargo Surveyors and Analytical Chemists and received fees from pre-shipment inspection and testing of quality of jute and jute goods on behalf of the buyers from different European countries and also of local buyers. In addition, during the year ended on December 31, 1975, relevant to the instant assessment year 1976-77, the assessee rece...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Birla Jan Kalyan Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: [1991]190ITR351(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are valid in law ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the Income-tax Officer found that a 'nil' return was filed originally but a claim for refund of Rs. 3,300 was made of tax deducted at source from interest earned by the trust. The Income-tax Officer had accepted the claim and allowed the refund of Rs. 3,300. Subsequently, a supplementary claim for refund of Rs. 755 being tax deducted at source from dividend was also allowed by the Income-tax Officer, The dividend and interest income had been claimed as exempt under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer found that the trustees of Birla Jan Kalyan Trust had received certain assets (shares) from ...
Express Cables Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR607(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the following questions, of law have been referred to this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability of the assessee-company under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, should be determined at Rs. 67,678 as claimed by it and is deductible in determining its total income under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs. 37,840 being the amount of 'set on' under the Payment of Bonus Ac,t, 1965, as claimed by the assessee-company was a lawful one for the purpose of accurate reflection of the time costs of earning its year's receipts under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »