Kolkata Court September 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.
Bengal Cardboard Ind. and Printers (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: 1992(62)ELT684(Cal)
ORDERB.P. Banerjee, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner challenged the validity of the Circular No. MF (DR) letter No. B 22/27/86-T H U dated 20th June, 1986 issued by the Respondent No. 4 Union of India in so far as the same seeks to deny the manufacturer the right to opt out from the MODVAT Scheme during a financial year as also the order dated 23-11-1987 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, whereby the petitioners were not permitted to opt out from the MODVAT scheme during the financial year in question as also two notices dated 31st December, 1987.2. The petitioner's case in short is that the petitioner was the manufacturer and seller of printed cartons and the petitioner has his factory at 72, Tiljala Road, Calcutta. It is not disputed that Central Excise duty is leviable on the said printed cartons manufactured by the petitioner at the rate provided under Heading 4818.13 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By the Financ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindusthan Gas and Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)155
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :The questions referred at the instance of the assessee are as under :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gratuity liability actuarially valued at Rs. 3,39,308 but not provided for in the books of accounts was inadmissible as a deduction due to the provisions of s. 40A(7) ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale proceeds of import entitlements amount to Rs. 3,17,856 were liable to capital gains tax.(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the export promotion expenses in respect of the following items were not entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B of the IT Act, 1961 -Rs.(a) Certificate fees to M/s. S. R. Batliboi & Co.102(b) Packing materials for expor...
Surendra Kumar Nathany Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal236
ORDER1. Both the matters raise common question of law and facts and have been heard together for reasons of convenience.2. The Matter No. 177 of 1988 has been filed by the owner of the premises No. 135E, F, G and H of Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, Calcutta on 15-2-1988 praying for a writ of Mandamus to withdraw, cancel and rescind the purported decision, if there be any, for acquiring the above property either under the Land Acquisition Act or under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 or under the West Bengal Premises (Requisition and Control) (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 and to forthwith give quiet, peaceful and vacant possession of the said property to the petitioners. 3. This writ petition has been filed on the following allegations:The premises No. 135E, F, G and H of Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, Calcutta has been kept by the Respondent under requisition by the requisition order No. 62/ 54 Uated May 8, 1959 under S. 2(f) of the West Bengal Premises Req...
Bidur Chandra Pal Vs. Atul Chandra Manna and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT124(HC)
S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. The present Second Appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1975 in Title Appeal No. 188 of 1960 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midnapore, affirming those dated 7.5.1960 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Contai, in Title Suit No. 132 of 1958, dismissing the plaintiff's suit under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order of dismissal of Misc. Case No. 129 of 1957 of the First Court of the learned Munsif, Contai, upon declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to get back possession of the suit land.2. The disputed property originally belonged to one Nabin Chandra Jana, who transferred the same to his two nephews Rudra Narayan and Markanda Jana, both sons of Kamal Lochan Jana, in equal shares ; Rudra Narayan was succeeded by his only son Bhuban and Markanda by his only son Jiban ; on 2.6.1951 Jiban sold his eight annas share to one Tarani Ku...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›