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.
Manas Kumar Dutta and anr. Vs. Alok Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC254
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Criminal Misc. Case may be briefly stated as follows :'The opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner No. 1 (son of petitioner No. 2) and they were married on 19-11-1985 and they lived a married life till 31-5-1987. Subsequently serious differences arose between them and ultimately the opposite party filed O.S. No. 112 of 1987 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Baripada. Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree of divorce and also prayed for a direction to be given to the petitioner No. 1 to return to her the gold and silver articles and other valuables belonging to her as mentioned in plaint schedules A and B. The petitioner No. 1 filed Matrimonial Suit No. 219 of 1987 against the wife (the present opposite party) for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the District Judge, Howrah. The opposite party filed criminal case ICC No. 89 of 1988 against the petitioners before the S.D.J.M....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganga Prasad Birla (Huf)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: [1993]199ITR173(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law holding that even if it is admitted that this was a speculative transaction, this cannot be taken as speculative business within the meaning of Explanation 2, Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that, in the instant case, as there was one isolated transaction, the finding of the Tribunal that it was a loss in business and not in speculative business was correct and it is in that view holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing the loss in such transaction (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loss of Rs. 91,000 (rupe...
Sri Manik Majumdar Vs. Sri Bhupendra Kumar Baksi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT285(HC),94CWN915
A.K. Nandi, J.1. The plaintiffs filed Ejectment Suit No. 57/89 in the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, for eviction of their tenant. One Manik Majumd'er filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded in the, suit. His contention is that he is a sub-tenant in respect of the disputed premises. According to him, he was inducted as a sub-tenant by the lawful tenant Rabindra Bhowmick in July 1982 with the knowledge, consent and approval of the then landlady Satyabati Dasi. Subsequently, the tenant Rabindra Bhowanick left the suit room and shifted elsehere. The petitioner regularly paid rent in respect of the suit room to the landlady Satyabati Dasi against receipts issued in the name of the tenant Rabindra Bhowmick. The opposite parties plaintiffs purchased the suit premises from Satyabati Dasi on 2nd July 1987. They gained over the tenant and filed the instant ejectment suit for recovery of possession of the disputed property. The p...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. N. Brahmachari.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)270
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred to this Court the following question under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the IT Rules, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that neither cl. (x) of s. 24(1) nor r. 4 of the IT Rules contains any prohibition of deduction of more than one years rent and in that view the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 39,625 out of total irrecoverable arrear rent of Rs. 57,750 in computing the house property income of the assessee ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1974-75 for which the relevant year ended on 31st March, 1974, it has been argued on behalf of the Revenue that the Appellate Tribunal went wrong in holding that the ITO and the AAC were not justified in limiting the year to one years arrear rent. In the instant case, income from house property after deduction of arrear rent irrecoverable was computed at more than Rs. 1 lakh. The Tr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lukwah Tea Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)11
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :The following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction under s. 80G on Rs. 1,90,687 in place of Rs. 1,16,382 ?'2. The assessment year involved in this reference is the asst. yr. 1978-79 for which the relevant period of account is the year ending on 31st December, 1977.In this case the assessees gross total income before deduction under s. 80G for the said assessment year amounted Rs. 23,27,649 and the assessee company made donations during the said period aggregating to Rs. 3,82,258. The assessee claimed that 50% of the donation, amounting to Rs. 1,66,129 should be deducted from the aforesaid gross total income. The ITO did not agree with the contention of the assessee. According to him the relief admissible under s. 80G was limited to 50% of 10% of the gross total in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Steel Containers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: [1993]204ITR523(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in holding that the dividend of Rs. 4,20,022 which was declared at the annual general meeting held after the close of the accounting period should be excluded from computation of capital for purpose of surtax assessment ?'The facts as narrated by the Tribunal in the statement of case are as under :While computing the capital for the purpose of assessment under the Surtax Act for the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer added development rebate reserve and general reserve shown at Rs. 1,13,579 and Rs. 33,11,275 respectively to the paid up capital of the company.Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: [1993]200ITR453(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,80,744, was neither assessable to capital gains tax nor as an item of business income ?'2. The assessee is a non-resident and is represented for the purpose of its income-tax assessment by its agents in India, M/s. James Finlay and Co. Ltd. The assessment year involved is 1969-70, the corresponding accounting period being the year ending November 30, 1968.3. The assessee grows, manufactures and sells tea. The Income-tax Officer computed the assessee's total income under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969 70, at a loss of Rs. 9,53,497. After the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on the assessee, it came to the notice of the Commissioner on perusal of the assessee's rec...
Smt. Purnima Mukherjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT324(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by Smt. Purnima Mukherjee, Smt. Jyotsna Mukherjee and Smt. Ayesha Banerjee of 35, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta praying inter alia for an appropriate Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to rescind, revoke, cancel and/or set aside the impugned notices dated, June 11, 1984 and June 14, 1984 and not to disturb the right, title, and interest and possession of the petitioners in respect of the premises No. 35, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta and for other consequential reliefs on the grounds that the impugned order and/or notice dated June 11, 1984 does not mention the particular public purpose for which the said premises is sought to have been requisitioned, and the order dated June 11, 1984 as well as order dated June 14, 1984 for placing the property in question at the disposal and control of the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, were served only on June 15, 1954 by practising fraud on statute.2. It is stated ...
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Asst. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: 1990(49)ELT167(Cal)
Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. The present Rule was issued on 31st of October, 1979 at the instance of the writ petitioner a Company formerly known as 'Birpara Tea Company Limited'. The petitioner Company has challenged the orders dated 28th of July, 1978 and 27th of October, 1976 in order to obtain exemption under the Notification dated June 16, 1976 bearing No. 198 in accordance with the petitioner's application dated May 31, 1978 and for other consequential reliefs on the grounds that the procedure mentioned by the respondent No. 1 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I Division in the order dated July 28, 1978 is not at all in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Notification No. 198 dated June 16, 1976. It is stated that in terms of the said Notification base periods and base clearances for each of the three categories of factories have to be determined separately in accordance with the procedure specified therein. It is further stated that there is no provision...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M. Omer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR608(Cal)
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. The Tribunal has forwarded the following question of law to this court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') :' Whether , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the deletion of the other source, addition of Rs. 1,01,649, constituting the unexplained cost of material and manufacturing cost of goods supplied by the assessee to the Defence Department ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1973-74 for which the relevant accounting year ended on March 31, 1973. At the very outset, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the assessee had died long ago and the legal representative of the assessee informed the income-tax authorities about his death and no substitution has been made. For the reasons given below, we do not think that this case should be adjourned for the purpose of making substitution.3. During the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »