Kolkata Court December 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. Davy Ashmore India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR626(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the payment of 36,470 made by the assessee-company to the foreign party as consideration for outright sale of drawings and design was not 'royalty' exigible to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are as follows :The assessee received a letter of intent from Light Metal Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the LMI') for maintenance and supply of terminal equipment for a secondhand aluminium cold-rolling mill being imported by them for their aluminium-rolled products project at Village Hoera in the District of Hooghly, West Bengal. LMI also issued a purchase order dated March 30, 1984, in terms of which the assessee was to arrange for the import of concept designs and drawings en...
Santiram Mullick Vs. Hiranmoy Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT399(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. This is an application for setting aside the Joint majority award of Four Arbitrators dated 6th February 1989 appointed in terms of the partnership agreement (Clause 13) dated 1.4.1987 by which the partnership business of the Chartered Accountancy Firm namely, Roy & Bagchi was reconstituted and the petitioner and the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 was inducted as partners.2. The petitioner states as follows :Without raising any prior dispute and difference whatsoever the respondent no. 1 suddenly by his letter dated 22.11.1987 (at page 40 of the petition)-appointed his arbitrator being the respondent no. 4 and called upon other partners to appoint their arbitrators in terms of Clause 13 of the Deed of Partnership dated 1.4.1987. The disputes as referred to by the said notice are in regard to (a) Amount of income of the firm, (b) Diversion of income of the firm, (c) Secretion of the income of the firm, and (d) Withdrawals in excess of the share of the partnership. These...
Indian Cable Company Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT22(Cal)
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is for a declaration that the purported assessment of the imported cable impregnating compound non-draining N.D. 359 and N.D. 304 under Tariff Item No. 38.01/19(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has been made wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the Customs Act, 1962 and that the excess duty realised is without authority of law. The petitioner has further prayed for a declaration that the said cable impregnatic compound containing more than 70% by weight of petroleum mineral oil was assessable under Tariff Item No. 27.10(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the respondents in the circumstances are bound to refund the excess amount wrongly realised under Item No. 38.01/19(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioner has also asked for a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, recall, rescind or cancel the impugned orders including the order dated Februa...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Harbanslal Charity Trust.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)292
AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J. :The order dt. 26th November, 1990 is recalled. These five applications under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 relate to asst. yrs. 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The common question of law on which reference has been sought for is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of s. 21A of the WT Act, 1957 did not apply and the assessee trust was entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(i) of the WT Act for the asst. yrs. 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83 ?'2. It appears that similar question on the interpretation of the corresponding section of IT Act, 1961 came up for consideration before this Court in IT Ref. No. 156 of 1985 where the judgment was delivered on 2nd March, 1990. Following the decision in CIT vs. Birla Charity Trust reported in (1989) 178 ITR 150 this Court answered in the affirmative holding that the provisions of s. 13(1)(c) read with s. 13(2)(h) of t...
Hindusthan Fertilizer Corporation Limited and ors. Vs. Assistant Colle ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC29
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was issued on 22.5.81 at the instance of the writ petitioners viz. Hindusthan Fertilizer Corporation Limited and the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited challenging inter alia, the orders dated 30th October, 1977, 27th October, 1978 and 4th March, 1988 as to the provisional assessment of Customs duty on the plant and machinery imported by the petitioners or either of them and for quashing of the aforesaid impugned orders. The petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ to cancel and rescind the aforesaid impugned orders and to refrain respondents from levying and/or collecting from the petitioners any Customs duty in respect of the plant, machinery and equipment imported by the petitioners except in accordance with the Item No. 72A of 1934 Act or Heading 84.66 of 1975 Act and also to refund the sum of Rs. 61,22,415.58 p. representing the excess customs duty realized from the petitioners with interest as per particulars given in Annexure ...
Abdul Rashid Vs. Sultana Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ76
ORDERAmal Kumar Chatterjee, J.1. The parties, a Muslim couple, were divorced on the 4th April, 1985, when the petitioner, the former husband, paid to the opposite party a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on account of Den-mohur of Rs. 1,000/ - and the balance for maintenance of their three minor children. The opposite party made an application before the learned Magistrate Under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, contending that the amount given was exhausted within two years and made a prayer for a direction upon the petitioner to make fair and reasonable provision for future. The learned Magistrate relying upon a single Bench decision of Gujarat High Court AIR 1988 Guj 141, took the view that the opposite party was entitled to get future maintenance from the petitioner and in the circumstances of the case held that he should pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in three instalments and an appropriate order was accordingly made. It is this order which is sought to be re...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Salonah Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)287
ORDERS--Applicability of s. 44C upheld by CIT(Appeals)--Merger of original assessment order with that of CIT(Appeals)--CIT had no jurisdiction to invoke s. 263 for revision of earlier order.HELD :The question of applicability of s. 44C was not before the appellate authority and as such there was a merger of the original order with the appellate order and consequently, the CIT(Appeals) could not invoke the s. 263 for revising the order passed. The Tribunal specifically observed that though the question of applicability of s. 44C was an issue, neither of the parties has disputed the quantum in this regard. There is no dispute about the calculation of s. 44C deduction but only the applicability of s. 44C was disputed. There has been merger of the appellate order with the order of the CIT(Appeals).Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 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 a...
Subhajyati Majumdar Vs. Smt. Arunima Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT442(HC),95CWN963,I(1992)DMC15
Mahitosh Majumdar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment orderNo. 4 dated 22-3-90 passed by the District Judge, 24-Parganas at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit no. 724 of 1989 and Decree no. 1051 of 1990 signed on April 2 1990 dismissing the joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short the said Act hereafter). The -husband, the petitioner no. 1, married co-plaintiff petitioner no. 2 on January 16, 1986 according to the Hindu sacromental rites and ceremonies at the residence of the father of the petitioners no. 2 at premises no. 25/A, H.B. Town, P.O. Sodepur. PS. Khardah, District 24-Parganas (N). After the marriage, the petitioners found themselves temparamentally opposed to each other and there was lack of mental adjustment between them. In other words, the mental incompatibility started growing and became so pronounced that the petitioners were not in a position to live together. Since June 21, 1986 the petitioners have been living separately a...
Swadesh Ranjan Sinha Vs. Haradeb Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal299,(1991)1CALLT223(HC),1991(1)CHN183
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated May 25, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 142 of 1981 reversing those of the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Howrah dated April 24, 1981 passed in T. S. No. 165 of 1977.2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted thesaid suit against the defendant-respondent for eviction from the suit premises and mesne profit. The suit premises comprises a third floor flat of a Howrah Improvement Trust building located at Kadamtola within P. S. Bantra. The plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff is the owner of the said flat and the defendant was a monthly tenant under him in respect of the flat at a monthly rental of Rs. 110/-payable according to English calendar month. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent from February, 1976. The plaintiff reasonably requires the suit flat for his own use and occupations. He has no alternative suitable accommodation. The defendant's tenancy was determined by...
Rathindra Nath Adhikari Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal409
ORDER1. This writ application is directed against the order dated June 12, 1978 passed by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Burdwanin Misc. Appeal No. 126/11 of 1977 reversing the order dated August 21, 1977 of Shri D. K. Chakraborty, Subordinate Judge, Burdwan in Misc. Case No. 56 of 1975.2. The facts of the case are in brief as follows:3. The petitioner is owner and in khas possession of Plot Nos. 1263 and 1264, Mouza : Hargram, P. S. Bhatat, Dist. Burdwan. The petitioner is an occupancy tenant, Mouza : Hargram. One Kanaklata Ghosh, since deceased was the owner of 3.7 1/2 acres of land having a Jama of 13.4/3 paise in Mouza : Hargram, P. S. Bhatar, Dist. Burdwan. The said Kanaklata Ghosh by a registered deed of sale sold the aforesaid land to one Kanai Chandra Samanta, Respondent No. 4 herein on June 27,1975 for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- Shri Kanai Chandra Samanta is a purchaser whereas the petitioner is owner and in khas possession of plots Nos. 1263 and 1264 contigious...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »