Kolkata Court August 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.
Shawkat Kamal Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT78(HC),1991LC609(Calcutta),1989(44)ELT409(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, praying inter alia for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to assess forthwith the Bill of Entry being Annexure 'E' as referred in the petition on the basis of Exemption Notification No. 224/85-Cus, dated 9th July, 1985, and 158/85-Cus, dated 24th May, 1985 as amended by 225/85-Cus, dated 9th July, 1985 without any objection whatsoever and further commanding the respondentsnot to impose any condition contrary to the exemption notifications as aforesaid and for other consequential orders directing the respondents to withdraw, recall and/or rescind the endorsement on the back of the Bill of Entry submitted by the petitioner being Annexure 'E' to the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of 'ES-KAY LEATHER PRODUCTS', as sole proprietor thereof. He claims to be a registered exporter under the Counci...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Universal Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Cal)59
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, read with s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the purpose of computation of chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 the amount of gross dividend should be excluded as per provisions of r. 1(viii) of the 1st Schedule instead of the net amount of dividend (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in computing the chargeable profits the loss on account should not be excluded and further that the gross dividend of Rs. 74,750 should be excluded from the total income in computing the chargeable profits under Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The assessment years involved in this reference are the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75, for which t...
Rupenjuli Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR301(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as inserted by the Finance Act, 1976, read with the Explanation with regard to the insertion of this section, as contained in the 'Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1976', the Tribunal was correct in holding that Section 44C applies to the case of the assessee ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are that the assessee, a sterling company, having its head office in the United Kingdom, owns a tea garden in India. The entire business operations of the assessee-company are carried out in India and only the statutory functions are attended to from the head office in the United Kingdom. During the relevant previous year, the as...
Manabendra Kumar Choudhury Vs. First Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1989
Reported in: 94CWN743,(1992)ILLJ455Cal
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an award of the 1st Labour Court, West Bengal, passed on March 25, 1988 which was published in the Gazette of April 20, 1988 is under challenge. The matter was very hotly contested by both the State and the company.2. The short facts leading to the case are as follows:The petitioner at the relevant time was employed as a typist under the Respondent No. 3 company. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 3 company wrongfully and illegally terminated the service of the petitioner on or about July 20, 1979. This termination of service of the petitioner gave rise to an industrial dispute and a reference was made to the 1st Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the said Act.3. The issue which was referred to the 1st Labour Court is 'Is the termination of service of Manabendra Kumar Choudhury justified? If not what relief...
Alliance Mills (Lessees) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1989
Reported in: 94CWN451,(1991)ILLJ71Cal
Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Alliance Mills (Lessees) Pvt. Ltd. has impugned in the present proceeding an Award passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal on 12th February, 1988 in Case No. VII-129 of 1986.2. It was contended that the respondent No. 4 Pradip Chakraborty, was a badli/casual labourer. On 21st December, 1982, the said Pradip Chakraborty severely assaulted one Kanai Charan Das, a co-worker at about 11.15 A.M. while the latter was going for lunch. He was beaten with a lathi which caused severe injuries and bruises and medical aid had to be given to the said Kanai Charan Das. The said Kanai Charan Das made a verbal complaint to Salil Banerjee, the Manager, Engineering Department and lodged a complaint at the police station. Sri Salil Banerjee, the Manager, sent a report to the Labour Officer of the petitioner company on the same day. The management of the company thoroughly examined and considered the matter and decided to remove the name of the respondent No...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Natwarlal Chowdhury Charity Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1989
Reported in: [1991]189ITR656(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee's right to accumulate 25% of the total income of the previous year extended to the deemed income under Section 11(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, added therein in the circumstances mentioned above ?'2. The facts found by the Tribunal as stated in the statement of case are as follows :The assessee-trust accumulated Rs. 46,184 during the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77. During the previous year relevant to the present assessment year, accumulated income ceased to be invested in fixed deposit with the Indian Bank and it was, therefore, deemed to be the income of the trust in the previous year in which it ceased to remain invested or deposited in terms of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-ta...
Sriram Bearings Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: [1993]199ITR579(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In the reference at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976-77 ;' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the rejection of the method of valuation of stock of finished goods adopted by the assessee was just and proper ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the extra shift allowance at 100% of the normal depreciation in respect of the plant and machinery installed during the year and the disallowance of the said claim was justified in law '2. Subsequently, the following further question was referred by the Tribunal in accordance with the directions issued by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether the inference of the Tribuna...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: [1991]190ITR455(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additional payment to the assessee's employees by way of ex gratia or puja or customary bonus in excess of the bonus payable under the Bonus Act, 1965, was an admissible deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are as under :The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical and industrial gelatine. During the relevant previous year, the assessee-company paid bonus to its employees at 8.33%. In addition thereto, it also paid another sum of Rs. 74,206 to its employees by way of ex gratia payment calculated at 8.17%. The Income-tax Officer did not allow deduction in respect of the said sum of Rs. 74,206 c...
Smt. Kusum Debi Jhinjhani Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi Khurda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal204
1. The plaintiff and the defendant are two sisters, Ram Kumar Changil, father of the parties, died intestate on 12th day of January, 1978. The two daughters, who are the plaintiff and the defendant in this suit are the only heiresses and/or legal representatives under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The suit as initially instituted was for partition of several other assets also and for claiming an equal half share in all the properties and assets left by the said deceased.2. It is not disputed that the plaintiff and the defendant were and are entitled to one equal half share each in the properties left by the said deceased excepting two items of property as mentioned hereunder. The partiesare also agreeable that a decree be passed for partition of all such assets mentioned in the said Schedule 'A' and 'B', save and except the said two items as mentioned hereunder:--1. Seven shares in Embassy Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 4, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-700017. 2. All that the f...
Soma Chatterjee Vs. Chapala Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC312
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. This is a suit for partition.The plaintiff's case may be briefly stated as follows :One Satkori Chatterjee who was a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law died intestate leaving behind him his only heirs, namely, Smt. Chapala Chatterjee, widow, Uttam Kumar Chatterjee, also known as Arun Kumar Chatterjee, since deceased, Barun Kumar Chatterjee and Tarun Kumar Chatterjee, as three sons. The said Satkori Chatterjee was the absolute owner of the premises No. 46, Girish Mukherjee Road, Calcutta and is used the same as his dwelling house. The plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Gouri Chatterjee also known as Smt. Gouri Debi, since deceased, are aft heirs and legal representatives of the said Uttam Kumar Chatterjee. The said Uttam Kumar Chatterjee, Barun Kumar Chatterjee and Tarun Kumar Chatterjee being Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively were the joint owners of premises No. 46, Girish Mukherjee Road, Calcutta each having one undivided 1/3rd ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »