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.
Radharani Tea and Estate (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Cal)190,[1990]184ITR581(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present rule was issued on February 9, 1982, t. the instance of the writ petitioner praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash three notices all dated January 21, 1982, under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), one each in respect of the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78 issued by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Nadia, arid for other consequential reliefs. It is stated that at all material times the petitioner owned two tea estates, one known as 'Radharani Tea and Estate in Dooars' and the other known as 'Krishna Kali Tea Estate in Assam'. The assessment years concerned in the writ application are 1975-76 to 1977-78. It is alleged that on November 17, 1981, the petitioner received three notices under Section 154/155 whereby respondent No. 1 proposed to rectify certain alleged mistakes in the assessment order for the said assessment years and was requested by respondent No. 1 to show cause by November 23, 1981....
Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR350(Cal)
ORDER--Order subject matter of appeal--Operative order is that of AAC in all respectsHELD:When an order of assessment is appealed against, and an order is passed by the appellate authority, there is merger of the assessemtn order with the appellate order in all respects, including mattters which have been merely affirmed by the appellate authority. Where there has been a merger of the order of the ITO with that of the AAC, the Commissioner has no jurisdictionto revise the order of the ITO. Once proceedings for reassessment are initiated, the originalorder of assessment loses its finality and at this stage it is no longer open for revision by the Commissioner. CIT v. Amrital Bhogilal and Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 130 (SC) followed. Susanta Chatterjee, J. 1. Both the rules were issued on September 26, 1977. The writ petitioner has challenged the notice dated August 17, 1977, issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) under Section 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, fo...
In Re: Dilip Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2471
ORDERJitendra Nath Chaudhuri, J.1. This application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C. has been filed in this Court on 21-6-89 by one Dilip Ch. Chatterji, apprehending arrest in Bhowanipore P.S. (sec. T) Case NO. 323 dated 20th June, 1989 under Section 304, read with Section 120B of I.P.C. This case has since been taken over by the detective Department Lalbazar of the Calcutta Police am Sections 467/468/471, I.P.C. have been added to the F.I.R. on 2-7-89 by amending the same and the learned S.D.J.M, Alipore has been intimated regarding the said amendment on 3-7-89, as submitted by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a licensed Building Architect of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.2. On 19-6-89 at about 10.30 P.M. a newly constructed multi-storeyed building 32A, Dr. Rajendra Road collaspsed, as a result of which, 10 persons who could not be evicted at the time of construction and who were residing at the gro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oil India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: [1992]196ITR366(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1971-72 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 1,79,569 should be excluded for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Section 40(a)(v) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income earned by the assessee from transporting the crude belonging to Oil & Natural Gas Commission along with its own crude was attributable to the business of production of mineral oil within the meaning of item 3 of the list of articles and things specified in the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 80B(7) and Section 80-I of the said Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Justice R.M. Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR86(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. This reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question referred to this court is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's professional receipts were not assessable under Section 176(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?'2. The assessee, in the present reference, is Justice Ramendra Mohan Datta who has since retired as a judge of this court. The assessee received sums of Rs. 14,000 and Rs. 10,000 in the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, as arrears of professional fees from solicitors and clients for services rendered by him as a lawyer before he was elevated to the Bench in the year 1967.3. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had maintained his accounts on receipt basis, i.e., on cash basis, and not on accrual basis. He, however, held that the sums re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Linotype and Machinery Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: [1991]192ITR337(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not entitled to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act for failure of the Income-tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The facts, shortly stated, are that the Income-tax Officer did not initiate any penalty proceedings under Section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act while making the assessment in question. The Commissioner of Income-tax was of the opinion that the notice under Section 210 of the Income-tax Act had been served upon the assessee calling for payment of advance tax of Rs. 96,372. The assessee filed an estimate under Section 212 on September 11, 1975, s...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Smt. Aloka Lata Sett and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: [1991]190ITR556(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1974-75 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the immovable properties gifted by the assessee by a deed executed on April 13, 1973, but registered on July 13, 1973, should be deleted from the total taxable gift of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows : The assessee filed a gift-tax return on August 20, 1974, declaring the value of the total gifts at Rs. 1,69,996. The Gift-tax Officer found that the gifts made by the assessee under a deed, registered on July 13, 1973, had not been included in the gifts returned by the assessee. He, therefore, included the amount of that gift being Rs. 1,36,242 while determining the value of the gift for the year under consideration. 3. The assesse...
Abdul Razzak Alias Raju Vs. Sudip Kr. Dutta Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2007
ORDERAmal Kumar Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioner is facing a trial before a Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta for an offence punishable Under Section 20(b)(iii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in course of such trial the prosecution wanted to examine as a witness one Sri Debi Prosad Nandigrami, an Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau with a view to prove that the petitioner had made a confessional statement before such officer. The petitioner objected to the examination of the said witness on the ground that he having been invested with the powers of an Officer-in-Charge of a police station for the investigation of the offence under the Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 thereof, he must be regarded as a police officer and as such any confession made to him was hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and could not be proved against the petitioner. The learned Judge has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›