Kolkata Court July 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.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors. Vs. Khan Mazdoor Karmachari Union and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR681],(1990)ILLJ44Cal
Roy, J. 1. This appeal by the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. is directed against the judgment and order dated April 17, 1986 made by a learned Single Judge in C.O.No. 2266(W) of 1984.2. The writ petitioners-respondents challenged two orders of transfers which have been disclosed from paragraph 40 onwards and on a reference to those transfer orders, it will appear, without any doubt, that exigencies of circumstances as involved, for such transfer, have not been mentioned disclosed.3. The transfer orders were admittedly made in or about 1982 and this Court was moved on February 28, 1984. On that basis, Mr. Garai wanted to submit that because of such delay, the order, as made, should not have been passed.4. On a reference to the order as impeached, it appeared that the learned Judge has recorded that the same was made on the suggestions of the parties. This fact, of course, was denied before us by Mr.Basu, who was leading Mr. Garai. On a consideration of the intrinsic evidence as availa...
Chinmoy Chakraborty Vs. Bharati Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC391
Monroanjan Mallick, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the petitioner husband being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore dated 19th December 1985 dismissing the petitioner-appellant's suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner husband has brought the Matrimonial action of divorce against the respondent wife stating the following facts.The petitioner was married to the respondent in accordance with Hindu religious rites on 24-2-1980 at 1B, Rajpur East Road, Calcutta-32, P.S. Jadavpur. He is an M.Sc. of Calcutta University and has been working as an Assistant in Indian Bank. He is a Table player and connected with All India Radio from the childhood. He is also a good sportsman and has good number of friends and acquaintances from amongst his colleagues and co-artists. The respondent appears to be accentric and a patient of schizophrenia having lucid intervals. On the occasion of 'Baubhat' ceremony ...
Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: [1992]198ITR760(Cal)
ORDER--Matter not considered by appellate authority--CIT can revise order on such matter.HELD :It is only in respect of such matter which has been considered and decided by the appellate authority that the CIT cannot exercise his power of revision under s. 263. But if the matter in respect whereof revisional jurisdiction is sought to be invoked was not before the appellate authority, the CIT can revise such matter as it remained untouched by the appellate authority. In such a case, the CIT has jurisdiction to invoke s. 263. Further, by the Finance Act, 1988, the provisions of s. 263 have been amended to clarify that the CIT would be competent to revise an order of assessment passed by an assessing officer on all matters except those that have been considered and decided by the appellate authority.APPLICATION :Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment years ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR541(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1977-78, the following questions of law have been referred to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the perquisites in terms of Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, alone would be the ceiling in the hands of the assessee-company under Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest paid or payable for the arrear cess for delayed payment should be allowed as a legitimate business expenditure while computing the assessee's total income for the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1977-78 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the legal expenses in connection with the writ petition filed by t...
M/S. Murray and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Wakfs and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal86
ORDER1. This writ petition was moved by the petitioner No. 1 who is the Company and the petitioner No. 2 who is the Director of the petitioner company praying for-a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order or direction of like nature commanding the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to forbear from treating the abovementioned premises No. 12, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta as a part of any Wakf Estate and further commanding the said respondents to withdraw, rescind and/or cancel any decision obtained or permission and/or sanction granted in respect of the said property to respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 or any one of them and to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to any such decision and/or permission and sanction and further to forbear from granting any sanction or permission under Ss. 53-54 of Bengal Wakf Act 1934 in favour of any one and further to act in accordance with law in respect of the said property.b) A writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or an order and/or direction of ...
Bose and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC190,1989(43)ELT404(Cal)
ORDERSusanta Chatterjee, J.1. The present Rule was issued on 10th of December, 1979 at the instance of the writ petitioners praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus challenging the Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-1977 and the Notification No. 89/79, dated 1-3-1979, being annexures 'S' to the writ application as ultra vires and also challenging the notice to sho cause dated 18-10-1979 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-VI Division copy of which is annexure 'N' to the writ petition on the ground that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents are arbitrary, illegal and inoperative inasmuch as the search and seizure was without jurisdiction for the reason that the condition precedent to the exercise under Rule 201 of the Rules was not satisfied and that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had no reason to believe on the basis of which he could make such search or authorise any officer to take effective step for searching. It is ...
Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raghavachari Narasingham and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2358
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. An interesting question of law as regards the true effect of Article 20, sub-Art. (3) of the Constitution falls for consideration in this application. It is to be noted that one of the fundamental principles of British system of Criminal Jurisprudence is that there is total prohibition as regards the compulsion of self-incrimination. Indian law also provides immunity on the basis of such compelled evidence. The Supreme Court decision in the case of M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra reported in : 1978(2)ELT287(SC) lends assistance to the views expressed above. The subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Kushalbhan reported in : (1960)ILLJ520SC lays down that even in the case of a departmental enquiry where a criminal proceedings is pending, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial Court so that the defence of the employer in the criminal case may not in any way be prejudic...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tea Estate (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: [1992]198ITR535(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1977-78 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in treating the cost of replacement of petrol engines of trucks by diesel engines as revenue expenditure and in that view, deleting the sum of Rs. 59,803 added by the Income-tax Officer '2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 89,704 representing the cost of three diesel engines fitted in trucks in place of petrol engines treating it as capital expenditure. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the expenditure for replacement of diesel engines in place of petrol engines of trucks was revenue in nature. He, however, found that the actual expenditure incurred for this purpose amounted to Rs. 59,883. He, therefore,...
Metro theatre Calcutta Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: [1991]188ITR778(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. This is a consolidated reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75. The following three questions have been referred to this court at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the second return signed by the constituted attorney was invalid in view of the provisions of the amended Act which came into force with effect from April 1, 1976 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the original return had been set aside to be completed de novo, as per the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the revised return filed by the assessee in the course of the reassessment was bad in law 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. PremnaraIn Praveen Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR539(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, 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 terms of Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 2(1) of Wealth-tax Rules in directing that the net wealth of the firm should be computed after deducting the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxiii) read with Section 5(1A) of the Act before the determination of the value of the interest of the partner in the firm ?'2. The short question which calls for determination in this reference is whether, in computing the net wealth of the firm, the exemption available to all the partners in terms of Section 5(1)(xxiii) ought to be allowed. The Tribunal held that the Wealth-tax Officer should recompute the net wealth of the firm after deducting the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxiii) read with Section 5(1A) from th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »