Kolkata Court June 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.
Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of In ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR47(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J. 1. The writ petitioner has obtained the present rule on August 13, 1979, challenging the impugned notice dated March 14, 1979 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-II, Calcutta, and all proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that there is no material and/or information in the possession of respondent No. 1 on which he has reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment in any of those two years and/or there is any omission or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the relevant years and, as such, the conditions precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 147 of the said Act do not exist. It is alleged that the power under Section 147 of the said Act has been sought to be utilised as a mere clo...
Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1989
Reported in: [1991]191ITR518(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. As many as eight questions of law--four at the instance of the assessee and four at the instance of the Revenue--for theassessment year 1972-73 have been referred to this court. Counsel for the parties are agreed that all the questions but two are covered either by the decisions of this court or of the Supreme Court. We do not, therefore, propose to set out the facts in respect of such questions. We, however, propose to answer the questions which are admittedly covered by the decisions of this court or of the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Be it mentioned that we have rearranged the questions for convenience :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the cash subsidy on controlled cloth of Rs. 52,87,267 was liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the benefit of Rs. 14,4...
Narendra Kumar Kedia Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC279,1990(49)ELT352(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. These two writ applications are heard together and disposed of by this judgment and order.2. Originally the grievance of the petitioner in these two writ applications both filed on 20th May, 1988 was against the two several show cause notices. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the adjudication order was passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and by his order dated 1st December, 1988, the Additional Collector of Customs imposed the penalty and redemption fine. The said order is under challenge in this proceeding.3. The facts leading to the said adjudication order which is impugned in this proceeding are stated hereinafter.4. The petitioner carries on business as manufacturer and importer of PVC Electrical Insulating Films under the name and style of 'Dee Pee Industries' which is a small scale industry. In the year 1986, the petitioner installed plant and machinery at the said factory. The petitioner also obtained Excise Gate Pass which is required f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Soorajmull Nagarmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: [1993]202ITR211(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 questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had no evidence and/or had relied on irrelevant materials in holding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return of its total income within the time allowed by the notice under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in cancelling the order of penalty made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that for the year under reference, the assessee was required to file its return of income on or before May 18, 1963, in terms of the notice issued under Section 139(2) of the Act served on the assessee on April 18, 1963. The...
Gourepore Co. Ltd. Vs. Nuddea Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR177],(1995)IIILLJ203Cal
M.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Gourepore Company Ltd. ('Company' for short), which runs a jute mill at Naihati, and one of its directors challenging the legality and validity of anorder dated June 12, 1989 made by the Government of West Bengal under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) prohibiting the continuance of the lock-out declared by the Companyin its mill with effect from April 7, 1989. The above order has been made in the wake of an order made under Section 10(1) of the Act on June 9, 1989 referring an industrial dispute, existing between the Company and its workmen on the following issues:'(1) Whether the management is justified in alleging low production and productivity by a section of workmen?(2) What wages are the workmen entitled to for the period of lay-off commencing from April 5, 1989' to the First Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta for adjudication.2. Mr. B.N. Sen, the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petit...
Govrepore Co. Ltd. Vs. Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ245Cal
M.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Govrepore Company Ltd. ('Company' for short), which runs a jute mill at Naihati, and one of its directors challenging the legality and validity of an order dated June 12, 1989 made by the Government of West Bengal under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) prohibiting the continuance of the lockout declared by the Company in its mill with effect from April 7, 1989. The above order has been made in the wake of an order made under Section 10(1) of the Act on June 9, 1989 referring an industrial dispute, existing between the Company and its workmen on the following issues '(1) Whether the management is justified in alleging low production and productivity by a section of workmen?(2) What wages are the workmen entitled to for the period of layoff commencing from April 5, 1989to the First Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta for adjudication.2. Mr. B.N. Sen, the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitio...
Shri M. Chakraborty Vs. National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Ass ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT112(HC)
Padma Khastgir, J.1. Being aggrieved by an order passed by a Learned Judge of this Court, the present appeal had been preferred.2. The appellants contended that there had not been any wilful or contumacious violation of the order and/or direction given by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Banerjee on 21st of March, 1986. On the contrary there had been due compliance of the said order. In any event when two views can be taken regarding the scope and effect of the said order and if the view taken by the appellants was a possible and reasonable view then in that event there could be no question of disobedience of the said judgment and order dated 21st of March, 1986.3. On 21st March, 1986, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the learned Judge in his judgment observed that inequality amongst the members of the staff as regards the employees of the registered office and the mills of the National Textile Corporation was the key point for consideration in the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lachatoorah Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: [1993]200ITR391(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, the Tribunal has referred the following common question of law to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred in the groundnuts and masoor business could be set off against the profits of the assessee's other business of the relevant year ?'The facts are briefly stated as hereunder :The assessee had income both in India and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during the years under reference. Up to October 7, 1960,Messrs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. was the managing agent of the assessee-company. From October 7, 1960, the Pakistan Commodities Ltd. became the managing agent of the assessee in East Pakistan. The managing agent, however, disclosed the carrying on of the business in groudnut and masoor on behalf of the assessee in both the years. The Income-tax Officer in Pakistan required the assessee to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: [1991]192ITR75(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1972-73, 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 was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward the balance of Rs. 2,96,308 by way of development rebate in the absence of creation of any appropriate reserve in the accounts of the year in question ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the full amount of development rebate totalling to Rs. 8,29,641 ?' 2. The facts shortly stated are that the assessee, who is engaged in the manufacture of textile goods, claimed before the Income-tax Officer development rebate of Rs. 8,29,641 but credited development rebate reserve of Rs, 4 lakhs only. This reserve credited fell short of the statutory requi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: [1991]189ITR422(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, the following question of law has been referred to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that depreciation amounting to Rs. 24,703 (rupees twenty-four thousand seven hundred and three only) even though not admissible as expenditure in working out the deficiency under Section 44A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income assessed to tax ?' 2. The point of reference relates to the deductibility of depreciation for computing the deficiency under Section 44A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a trade association and the assessment year involved is 1967-68 for which the accounting period ended on December 31, 1966. Besides deriving business income which is taxed, the assessee has also income from payments made by the members by w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »