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.
In Re: Chittaranjan Koley Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT222(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. A large number of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were admitted by this Court filed by several hundred petitioners challenging West Bengal Luxury-cum-Entertainment and Amusement Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1987 and praying for a declaration that Section 4A of the West Bengal Entertainment - cum - Ainusement Tax Act, 1982 as incorporated by West Bengal Taxation Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1987 and West Bengal Cinematograph (Regulation of Special Exhibition) Order 1987 and all notifications and circulars issued thereunder are unconstitutional and void and to restrain the State respondents to initiate cases and seize the video sets where public shows are being held without permission and without payment of stipulated tax and not to disturb and/or interfere with the respective business of the petitioners and the public shows of the Video at the coffee centres and restaurants in any manner and in any form whatsoever. Since common questio...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MundrA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: (1992)93CTR(Cal)73,[1992]193ITR420(Cal),[1992]55TAXMAN355(Cal)
BHAGABATI PRASAD BENERJEE J. - The following question of law under section 27 (3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has been referred to this court by the Tribunal :'Whether the alleged right of the assessee in respect of the premises was an asset in the eye of law under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'The relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1975-76 for which the period of account is the year ending on March 31, 1975.The relevant facts of this case are as follows :'The assessee had entered into an agreement in writing to execute a lease deed for a period of 65 years in respect of the ground floor of 26, P. K. Tagore Street, Calcutta. No registered deed, however, was executed for this purpose. The assessee, after taking the above property on lease, had let it out to others and was deriving income from it. The Wealth-tax Officer held that this was a long-term lease and, therefore, its value had to be included in the hands of the assessee. He also found that the property was giving an i...
Shyam Sundar Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal64,(1990)1CALLT219(HC)
ORDER1. For the first time a Consti-tution Amendment. Bill has been challenged in a High Court since, the Constitution of India came into force on 26th January, 1950., The Constitution,, (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1939 (commonly known as the Panchayati Raj Bill) which, has since been introduced in the Lok Sabha (the House of the People) has been challenged in a writ application. Apart from the Union of India; the Secretary to the. Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice; and the State of West Bengal; the writ petitioner has also made, the Speaker of the, Lok Sabha, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the, Prime Minister of India in his official capacity, and Mr.Rajiv Gandh in Prime Minister of India in his personal capacity as the parties-respondents. The writ petitioner is a man of some public importance. He was the Mayor of Calcutta for a term and was also elected to the Lok Sabha once: Naturally, he is interested in the political activities and constitutional affairs of the...
Orissa State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Customs Appeal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT404(HC),1991LC536(Calcutta),1989(43)ELT270(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by Orissa State Electricity Board for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to cancel and/or rescind the orders passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 being the Collector of Customs (Appeal) and the Assistant, Collector of Customs respectively and to refrain them from giving effect to and/or from taking any steps in terms thereof or thereunder and to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 9,54,983.42p., as detailed thereof in paragraph 7 of the writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Collector of Customs, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned orders have been passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively with total non-application of mind.2. It is contended that the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 failed to appreciate that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in th...
Asiatic Oxygen Limited Vs. Jt. Secretary, Government of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: 1990(28)LC352(Calcutta)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present rule was issued on 18.12.1981 at the instance of the writ petitioner praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw and/or rescind the notice to show cause dated 14.8 1981 and the order dated 26,9.1981 and all proceedings relating thereto on the ground that all the conditions for assessment under heading No. 84.66 of the Tariff Act were and are satisfied in respect of the import of the gas cylinders. It is stated that the gas cylinders were in fact required for initial setting up of the gas plants of the petitioners and the findings of the respondent No. 1 and the allegations made in the said notice dated 14.8.1981 that the gas cylinders were not required for initial setting up of the gas plants are wholly incorrect and misconceived. It is further stated that the cylinders form an integral part of the plant and machinery required for setting up of the gas plants as the plant cannot produce its rated cap...
Belliss and Morcom (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Cal)272
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the selling agents commission of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 11,675 paid to M/s. Sunder Electric Mart and Shri A. N. Shukla was not paid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessees business ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Technical Service Fees amounting to Rs. 35,617.50 payable to Belliss & Morcom Ltd. U.K. under the agreement dated 30th December, 1974 subsequently confirmed by a debit note issued on 21st June, 1977 in terms of the said agreement, was not an expenditure allowable in the asst. yr. 1978-79 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses incurred by the applicant amounting to Rs. 48...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarala Devi Birla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: [1993]203ITR953(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1962-63 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was under noobligation to disclose in her return of income, the income of her minor daughter ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 64(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment of the assessee under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of her omission or failure to disclose the income of her minor daughter in her own assessment ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that, originally, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on November 25, 1962, on a total income of Rs. 1,14,68...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jute and Stores Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: [1993]200ITR411(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for land revenue of Rs. 41,046 was correctly treated as an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1973-74 ?'2. The facts which are admitted and/or found by the Tribunal are as under :The assessee-company carries on the business in the manufacture and sale of tea and plywood. It owns two tea gardens which are situated in the State of West Bengal, The assessee-company follows the mercantile system of accounting. The previous year of the assessee relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 which is now in reference before this court is the calendar year 1972.3. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the said year, the assessee-company claimed deduction in respect of rent and cess for the earlier year agg...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Teesta Valley Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR657(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability to pay the arrear rent and cess of Rs. 4,13,666 arose in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 and, therefore, it was an admissible deduction in the aforesaid assessment year ?'2. The facts which, are admitted and/or found by the Tribunal are as under :The assessee, a public limited company, carries on business in the manufacture and sale of tea. It owns a tea garden which is situated in the State of West Bengal. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. The previous year of the assessee relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, which is now in reference before this court, commenced on March 1, 1975, and ended on February 28, 1976.3. In ...
Dunlop India Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT159(HC),1990(27)ECC243,1990(48)ELT8(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated October 31, 1980, November 4, 1980, 29th November, 1980, 30th January, 1981 and the impugned requisition dated October 29, 1980 copies of which are Annexure 'G' & 'H' respectively to the writ petition and for other consequential reliefs as stated in the writ petition itself. It is stated that the petitioner Dunlop India Limited is one of the principal manufacturers of tyres and tubes and various rubber products like belting, hoses etc. in India and in its factory at Shahaganj near Calcutta and also at Ambatur in Tamil Nadu. It is further stated that a considerable technological advancement was made which did away with the use of canvas cloth and used only cords known as 'warp cords', calendered or spread with rubber. It has been elaborated in details that with use of man-made fibre cord as such rayon polyester etc. it was found to be necessary to pre-treat the warp cords by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »