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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jeewanlal (P.) Ltd. (1929)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR128(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1963-64, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in passing an order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, withdrawingthe development rebate in respect of electrical installations of the buildingof the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the matter in issue was debatable and, as such, it was wrongly brought into the ambit of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer and in that view cancelling the order under Section 154 of the said Act ?' 2. The facts briefly stated are that, in the original assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration, the Income-tax Officer allowed development rebate...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR497(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1972-73, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the agreement dated June 29, 1961, between the assessee and the West Bengal State Electricity Board, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 1,66,740 was a revenue expenditure?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee made a payment of Rs. 1,66,740 to the West Bengal State Electricity Board. In the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer allowed payment of Rs. 1,66,740 as revenue expenditure. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. The assessee contended before the Commissioner, by referring to the agreement dated June 29, 1961, between the assessee and the Electricity Board, that when the service lines and apparatus remained the property ...
income-tax Officer Vs. East Coast Mfg. and Marketing (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD388(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri A. Satyanarayana, A.M. - These appeals filed by the revenue are against the separate orders of the CIT (A) dated 31-12-1986 for the assessment years 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83. As the point involved is common in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee companys business consists of export of cast iron goods and running of Hotel East Coast at Haldia. The assessee claimed depreciation of 10 per cent on hotel building contending that it should be treated as plant in view of the Supreme Courts decision in the case of CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel : [1971]82ITR44(SC) . The ITO stated that, by any stretch of imagination, the hotel building could not be treated as plant. Accordingly he rejected the assessees claim for treatment of hotel building as plant. He allowed depreciation according to the rates permissible for hotel building. Aggrieved by the orders of the ITO the assessee carried the matter before the CI...
Hindusthan Safety Glass Works Limited Vs. Central Board of Excise and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT365(HC),1990(29)ECC24,1990(45)ELT66(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition filed by Hindusthan Safety Glass Works Limited prayed for, inter alia, issuing of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to levy any duty of excise on broken glass cullets arising in the process at the petitioner's factory under Item 23A of the First Schedule of the Act being Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the order bearing No. 39 IB dated July 18, 1981 and the purported Tariff Advice Bearing No. 76/81 dated August 4, 1981 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the purported order bearing No. V-23A(3)2-AC/81 dated November 20, 1981 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-x Division and to refund the amount realised as alleged duty of excise on such broken glass/cullets and to, further, act in accordance with law, and for other consequential reliefs as fully stated in the writ petition itself. ;2. It is alleged that in course of making and/or producing toughened g...
Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1989
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT562(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was obtained by the writ petitioner challenging the Order No. V(30)-5-SBP-C.EX.-78/2629 dated February 15,1978 and the order dated October 7,1980 in Appeal No. 82/OR 1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Sambalpur and to restrain the respondents from levying any duty on wrapping paper at the stage of its being taken for packing other varieties of papers and/or in the alternative to allow proforma credit in respect of duty paid on the wrapping paper at the earliest stage on being taken for packing other varieties of paper under Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules.2. It is stated that the petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing paper and paper board. The petitioner is alleged to be duly licensed under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and/or the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is further stated that different types of papers are subjected to different rates of duty under the Act. A part of the packing a...
income-tax Officer and Ors. Vs. James Joseph O'Gorman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: [1993]204ITR454(Cal)
Padma Khastgir, J.1. Being aggrieved by issuance of a notice under Section 133(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 131 of the Income-lax Act, a writ petition was tiled before this court. By a judgment and order dated August 19, 1980, Mr. Justice Samarendra Chandra Deb, as his Lordship then was, was pleased to quash and set aside the notice under Section 131 issued by the Income-tax Officer and made the rule absolute, Therefrom the present appeal has been preferred by the Income-tax Officer, 'H' Ward, Companies, District IV, Calcutta. The only point which calls for determination in this appeal is whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in issuing a notice under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act. So far as the notice under Section 133(6) of the said Act is concerned inasmuch as the said notice was addressed to the Grindlays Bank Ltd.'s principal officer in a separate proceeding the bank challenged the said notice. The rule in the said writ proceeding was made ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Co. (P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR596(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether the conclusion and/or the findings of the Tribunal that the assessee had discharged the initial onus in proving the loans as genuine and that the loans in question are genuine, are vitiated in law being based on partly relevant and partly irrelevant material and/or inadmissible evidence and/or evidence contradictory and/or inconsistent with the material on record and/or the Tribunal have acted without any legal evidence and/or by rejecting improperly admissible evidence and whether such conclusion and/or findings are otherwise unreasonable and/or perverse ?'2. The facts shortly stated are that, in the course of the assessment proceedings for the years under consideration, the Income-tax Officer noticed hundi loans in each of the said years. He, therefore, called upon the assessee t...
Osman Mullick and ors. Vs. Md. AlauddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT324(HC),93CWN1069
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. The Law Courts would be within its jurisdiction to-reject a plaint in the event, the suit is barred under any law or in the event the plaint does not disclose a cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 and to do so would be a plain exercise of judicial power and there ought to be any hesitation in regard thereto. It is to be noted that such, a scrutiny and subsequent order thereon would be passed upon consideration of the averments in the plaint as correct.2. Mr. P. K. Das appearing in support of the application strongly contended that the plaintiff-firm is not registered under the Indian Partnership Act and the persons suing as partners, viz. plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are not shown in the Register of Firms as partners thereof and since the suit has been filed by the plaintiff to enforce a right arising from a contract, the plaintiffs are liable to be non-suited by reasons of the provisions as contained in Section 69(1) and 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Mica Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1989
Reported in: [1994]205ITR387(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1964-65, the following questions of law have been referred to this court:Assessment year 1962-63 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment proceeding under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was illegal and ab initio void and in that view annulling the assessment ?' Assessment year 1964-65 ; ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment proceeding under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was illegal and ab initio void and in that view annulling the assessment 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in not upholding the validity of the proceeding under...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganga Properties Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1989
Reported in: [1993]199ITR94(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1972-73 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had no application and could not be invoked? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in this case was not given in accordance with law? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Rs. 18,675 was incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively to earn its income and as such the Tribunal was right in holding that this amount was a deductible expenditure?' 2. The first question is now concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese v....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »