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.
Nanjiah Chandappa and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2325,1990(25)ECC417,1992(62)ELT715(Cal)
ORDERAjit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 14th November, 1986 passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA). This application was moved on February 13, 1987, affirmed by the wife of the petitioner as the petitioner was at the material time in USA in connection with his export business pursuant to the leave granted by the Karnataka High Court.2. Upon the said application being moved an interim order was made on 19th February, 1987 restraining respondents from giving any effect to or taking any steps in pursuance of the said order of detention dated 14th November, 1986. It may be mentioned that in spite of notice of the application served upon Deputy Director of Enforcement, no one put in appearance for the Deputy Director or for any of the respondents. On 23rd February, 1987 a further order ...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Ramesh Chandra Pati (L/R of Ashutosh Pati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1989
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Cal)185
AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J. :In this reference under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958, the following question of law has been referred to this Court for the asst. yr. 1968-69. The question is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 41C of the GT Act, 1958, the Tribunal was justified in law in annulling the assessment made by the GTO ?'2. The facts, in brief, are that Late Ashutosh Pati gifted a house property and some agricultural lands in favour of his three sons, viz., (1) Shri Ramesh Ch. Pati, (2) Shri Harish Ch. Pati, and (3) Shri Jogesh Ch. Pati. The GTO initiated proceedings under s. 16(1) of the GT Act, in reply to which a return was filed. Notice under s. 15(2) of the Act was issued and served on Shri Ramesh Ch. Pati since at the material time the donee (?) had died. In the absence of any compliance on behalf of Shri Ramesh Ch. Pati, the assessment was made under s. 15(5) of the Act.The assessee preferred appeal before the A...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shalimar Wire and Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1989
Reported in: [1991]188ITR814(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 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 fact that the gratuity fund was approved with effect from March 27, 1976, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the conditions laid down in Section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were fulfilled and the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 4,27,781 representing provision for payment of gratuity made in the previous year which ended 30th June, 1974 ?' 2. The facts are that the Income-tax Officer, while computing the income of the assessee, disallowed the assessee's claim for gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,27,781. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the Income-Officer, preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), by his orde...
Gopikisian Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1989
Reported in: 1990(48)ELT20(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was issued on 29-4-1982 at the instance of the writ petitioners praying, inter alia, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the purported notice dated 18-1-1982 and all the purported proceedings relating thereto and not to levy any duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules thereunder. The said purported notice dated 18-1-1982 was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandernagore Range.2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioner Company carries on the business of cold storage. The respondents are allegedly contending that the welding of the duty paid, steel pipes purchased by petitioner company in 'U' shape for the installation of the petitioner company amounts to manufacture of bunker coils and condensers by the petitioners and hence petitioners are liable to pay duty thereon under Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Centr...
West Bengal Cememt Ltd. and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Other ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal157
ORDER1. The West Bengal Cement Ltd. and Mr. B. K. Sahani, the Chairman of the West Bengal Cement Ltd. and also a share-holder for self and on behalf of the share-holders of the West Bengal Cement Ltd. have filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the notices dated 9-10-1987 and 13-11-87 issued by the respondent No. 3 as ultra vires, bad in law and void and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from proceeding on the basis of or in pursuance of the said notice or any identical notice of such nature and to withdraw and/or to cancel them and also of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect and/ or further effect and / or proceeding on the basis or in pursuance of the said two notices and for consequential reliefs.2. The facts which are material for the purpose of this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows :--The petitioner No. 1, West Bengal Cement Ltd. was under the management of the re...
AmIn Chand Payarelal Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR330(Cal)
Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. The present rule was issued on December 12, 1977, at the instance of the writ petitioner, Amin Chand Payarelal, a partnership firm, praying, inter alia, for an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to cancel and/or withdraw the order dated September 26, 1974, passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Calcutta, orders of assessment and the penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, demand notice under Section 156 of the said Act and the penalty orders dated October 7, 1974. It is stated that the notices under Section 271(1)(a) read with Section 274 of the said Act were issued on October 4, 1974, by respondent No. 4, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-V (Central), Calcutta, without having any competence, authority and/or jurisdiction under the new Act as it appeared to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-V (Central), Calcutta, that the petitioner had, without reasonab...
Purnendu Narayan Chakraborty Vs. the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ116Cal
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. The writ petitioner, Purnendu Narayan Chakraborty, is a member of the Infest Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) and is currently posted as Assistant District Judge of Nadia. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Chief Justice of this Court and other concerned authorities. He says that he has been discriminated against and has been subjected to unfair treatment in relation to his service. His grievances are:-(a) He has been superseded by many of his juniors at the stage of promotion from the grade of Judicial Magistrate or Munsiff to the next higher post of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate;(b) He has been denied the benefit of a higher scale of pay to which he was lawfully entitled.2. He has prayed for quashing the various orders which resulted in such supersession and the order denying him the benefit of the higher scale. He has also prayed for re-fixation of his seniority in the rank of Assistant District Judge i...
Smt. Asha Devi Saboo Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1989
Reported in: [1992]195ITR782(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, estate duty liability is deductible from the value of the estate ?'Shortly stated, the facts are that Shri N. K. Saboo died on May 9, 1971. The accountable person filed his estate duty return showing the total estate at Rs. 5,15,678. During the assessment proceedings, the accountable person had claimed deduction of estate duty liability from the total estate for determining the estate duty payable. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty disallowed the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty allowed the claim of Rs. 90,186.50. However, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty and disallowed the deduction of estate duty liability from the total estate. Section 44 of the Act provides that, in determining the value o...
Smt. Sankari Dutta (Legal Heir of Deceased Tarak Nath Dutta) Vs. Contr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1989
Reported in: [1991]191ITR449(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the proviso to Section 62(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty was not justified in entertaining the appeal filed by the accountable person and in restoring the penalty imposed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the accountable person was required to pay a sum of Rs. 57,239 by way of estate duty under a notice of demand served on the accountable person on February 10, 1976. The amount of the estate duty was required to be paid on or before March 4, 1976. On an application made by the accountable person, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty allowed the accountable person to pay the estate duty in instalments...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mrs. Sati Mulchandani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1989
Reported in: [1991]192ITR103(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the following question of law has been referred to this court;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) in the manner claimed by the assessee ?'2. The facts shortly stated are that in the original assessments for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the share of the assessee in a firm, namely, Mulchandani Radio and Appliances, where she was a partner, had been included. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer came to know that one of the properties which the said firm was having is a flat which was valued at a lower figure, according to the Wealth-tax Officer as per the assessment of another partner. Consequently, the assessment of the assessee was reopened under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act in order to enhance the share of the assessee in the said partnership firm by taki...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »