Kolkata Court January 1990 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)240
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :In this reference the Tribunal has forwarded the following questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 relating to the asst. yr. 1977-78 for which the relevant year of account ended on 31st December, 1976 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,03,000 paid by the assessee company to M/s. Vulcan Industries for premature termination of the agreement between them was revenue expenditure of the assessee ?''(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 25,03,000 representing actuarially valued liability for gratuity for the year 1976 was not an allowable deduction in computing the total income of the assessee company for the asst. yr. 1977-78 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission payments of Rs. 70,667 to senior m...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand Bhandar.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Cal)244
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing registration to the firm in terms of the provisions of s. 185 of the Act.'The assessment year involved is 1979-80 for which the relevant period of account is 1385 B.S.In this case the ITO refused registration on the ground that the firm was not genuine. Thereafter, the assessee took up the matter before the AAC. The Tribunal on consideration of the facts of the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the genuineness of the firm could not have been disputed. The Tribunal was of the view that the genuineness of the firm was in existence during the year therefore, the registration should be allowed. The finding of the Tribunal which is under challenge is the finding of fact. The Tribunal is the fact-finding authority. It could not be shown that the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Himalayan Endeavour (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Cal)200
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :The Tribunal has referred following questions of law before this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the meaning of Industrial Company for the purpose of concessional tax as per the Finance Act, 1980 and Industrial Undertaking for the purpose of benefits under s. 80HH and other benefits are quite different and disputed, the Tribunal is justified in holding that action under s. 154 can be taken by the CIT(A) ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that as the assessee is an industrial company for the purpose of concessional tax, the other benefit, viz., benefit of s. 80HH is also available 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of s. 80HH and is entitled to the benefit entered in t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hari Sankar Pareek.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)19
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has forwarded the following question of law to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the assessee entered into an agreement for the purchase of a flat and paid the full consideration and took possession of the said flat, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the AAC that the notional income from the said flat cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee who was not the legal owner of the flat inasmuch as the deed of conveyance for transfer of the flat was neither executed nor registered ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1979-80 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 31st March, 1979.3. The ITO in his order recorded the following facts :The assessee had purchased a flat. He had paid full consideration and took possession of the flat. The assessee was getting all the benefits from the flat. But there was no registered...
Atmaram Kanoria and ors. Vs. L.K.R. Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT102(HC),94CWN393
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. In order to appreciate the issues arising for decision in this Contempt Petition, it is necessary to set out the facts in. some detail.2. The petitioners are the owners of a property being land with superstructures bearing premises No. 14, Ballygunge Park, Calcutta. They intended to demolish the existing super-structures and to raise a twelve storied residential building on the said premises. They, therefore, submitted the requisite sets of Building Plans for sanction to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation Authorities', on or about August 26, 1987. The Building Plans were 'accepted conditionally for further scrutiny' subject to certain conditions by the Corporation Authorities. From time to time thereafter certain objections/ requisitions were served upon the petitioners and they are stated to have been duly complied with by the submission of revised Building Plans whenever necessary or required.3. It is the case of the pet...
Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: 1990(30)LC87(Calcutta)
S. Chatterjee, J.1. The present writ petition was moved on 7.5.1985. An interim order was passed by Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J. in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition on condition that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac by Monday next as stated in the order before the respondents and it was made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to process and finalise the price-lists which have been submitted by the petitioner subject to the result of the writ application. It appears further that the petitioner No. 1 Company under the Companies Act and the petitioner No. 2 being its nominee director manufactured paints and varnishes at its factory at Naihati in the District of 24-Parganas. The petitioner have prayed inter alia for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel and/ or withdraw two show cause-cum-demand notices, the bearing No. C, CE-13/R-V1/BKP/84/1503 dated 17.12.1984 and other bearing No. CE-13/R-V1/BKJP/84/8 dated 1.1.1985 and ...
The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Cal438,(1990)1CALLT248(HC)
ORDERBimal Chandra Basak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application for condonation of delay and for recalling the order dated 15th June, 1987 passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the suit for non-prosecution.2. The facts of this case are shortly as follows :On or about 1st February, 1980, the plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendantsfor leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, decree against the defendants or such of them as may be held liable to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 14,37,400.23 paise, declaration that the sum of Rs. 9,33,377.16 paise is payable by the defendants or either of them to the plaintiff and decree directing the defendants to pay the sum of Rs. 9,33,377.16 paise along with interest thereon from 31st January, 1977 at the rate of 18% per annum until payment, interim and further interest, costs and various other reliefs. The writ of summons was duly served on the defendant...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bagree Estates (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR445(Cal)
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. 1. The following two questions of law have been referred to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the payment of interest to the assessee under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, up to the date of giving effect to the appellate order is a debatable point, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's application under Section 154 of the Act to the Income-tax Officer was quite maintainable ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 2(40) of the Act, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the regular assessment as contemplated in Section 214 of the Act included the order of the Income-tax Officer giving effect to the orders of the appellate authorities and in that view interest under Section 214 was payable to the assessee for...
Manab Alias Manabendra Barman Vs. Suvadra Alias Swati Burman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: 94CWN849,I(1991)DMC465
Haridas Das, J.1. This civil revisional application by the petitioner is directed against an order dated April 1, 1989 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Second Court, Alipore 24-Parganas in Misc. Case No. 38 of 1985 directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance for his wife and minor daughter who are opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 herein.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as follows :The opposite party No. 1 is the wife of the petitioner. The opposite party No. 2 is their minor daughter born out of the wed lock. Sometime in June 1985, the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 presented the plaint of an intended suit under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner and others for maintenance and other reliefs along with an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) praying for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The application under Order 33...
Padmanava Ghosh Vs. Aparajita Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT296(HC),I(1991)DMC599
Amal Kumar Chatterjee, J.1. These two revisional applications heard together arise in the circumstances as under :2. Smt. Aparajita Ghosh, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1242 of 1987 and opposite party in the other case made an application before a competent Magistrate under Section 125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against her husband Padmanava Ghosh, who is the opposite party in the said Revision No. 1242 of 1987 and the petitioner in the other. The application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was disposed of on the 4th September, 1973, whereby learned Magistrate directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 80/- per month to the wife on account of maintenance. Subsequently the husband made an application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the order on the ground that his wife has since been employed as a teacher of a school on a decent salary and she was no longer in need of any maintenance from him. This application was sought to be resisted by the wife on the ground that i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »