Kolkata Court April 1990 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramlal RajgarhiA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(Cal)403
ORDERBHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :The Tribunal has forwarded the following question of law to this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of s. 254(2) of the IT Act in the Tribunals order on ITA No. 849(Cal) of 1981, dt. 24th September, 1982, which could be rectified by the Tribunal by its subsequent order ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1977-78.3. In this case the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue by observing as under :'We have heard the rival submissions and considered the facts of the case. The insertion of s. 80AB by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 with retrospective effect from 1st August, 1968 has made it clear that 'where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section (except s. 80M) included in this Chapter under the heading 'C-Deductions in respect of certain income' in respect of any income of the nature specified...
Tag this Judgment!Owen Vs. Elliott (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR109(Cal)
Fox L.J. This is an appeal by the taxpayer from a decision of Millett J.,who dismissed an appeal from a decision of general commissioners holding that an assessment to capital gains tax for the year 1981-82 in the sum of some Pounds 20,000 in respect of the Gleneagles Hotel, Eastbourne, should be upheld. The case is concerned with the meaning of the words 'let by him as residential accommodation' in section 80(1) of the Finance Act 1980.The commissioners found the following facts. The Gleneagles Hotel consisted of two parts, namely, a main building and an annexe. The taxpayer, Mr. Owen, and his wife who had purchased the property jointly in 1976, carried on the business of a private hotel and boarding house on the premises, in that they received guests for payment. Mrs. Owen did the cooking and the washing for the guests. There were no separate facilities for cooking or washing clothes in the bedrooms. The main building consisted of ten bedrooms, a kitchen and a lounge. The annexe cont...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoji Shaw Vs. Jainath Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT363(HC)
Abani Mohan Sinha, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order of the learned Munsif 2nd Court, Serampore passed in Title Suit No. 182 of 1981 on 30.11.1988. The suit was for declaration of title on the assertion that the suit property was purchased in the Benam of the defendant by a registered sale deed dated 17.11.1978 and the property really belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the title and possession of the plaintiff in the disputed property. In that suit the present revisionist as defendant entered appearance and contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 which prohibits the right to recover property held in benam by any suit or action. It also prohibits a party from taking up any defence of benam against the person in whose name the property stands.2. The learned Munsif in the impugned order held that the i...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Nath Bose Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ922
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Two specific charges were framed-- one under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal breach of trust and the other under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution, however, did not press the second charge and, accordingly, it was expunged by the order of the learned Special Court dated 29th April, 1975. The case, therefore, proceeded under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Shortly, the case of the prosecution is that Jitendra Nath Bose, the accused was the Head Cashier of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, Lake Depot, Calcutta. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21(22) of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Habal Shaikh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1258
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. The two appellants in this appeal were convicted Under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Under Section 9(b)(ii) of the Indian Explosives Act. Each of the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable Under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed for offence punishable Under Section 9(b)(ii) of the Indian Explosives Act. This appeal is directed against the said order of conviction and sentence of the two appellants Habal Shaikh and Samsul Shaikh.2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is that in the night of 26th July, 1984, the deceased Surapati Ghosh and his other family members, namely, P.W. 1 his widow Puspa Bala, P.W. 2 daughter Chinta Rani, P.W.4 son Aloke Ghosh and their labourer Dasarath Rajbanshi after taking their night meals had been to the first floor of the house of Surapati Ghosh for taking sleep at about 11.00 p.m. Thereafter Puspa Bala and Chinta Rani wen...
Tag this Judgment!S. T. P. Ltd. Vs. Surtax Officer.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD702(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri S. Kannan, Accountant Member - These two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Department, are centered on the same issue. They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of a by a common order.2. The issue involved in this case relates to the computation of capital under Schedule II of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The issue arises this way. There was one M/s. Lodna Colliery Co. (1922) Ltd. The said company, which was one of the companies belonging to the assessees group, used to supply coal to the assessee. The assessee owned an aggregate sum of Rs. 34,87,647 to the said colliery company towards coal supplied. The said colliery company was nationalised some time in 1972-73. In its accounts relating to the year ending on 30-6-1979 the assessee, it 1972-73. In its accounts relating to the year ending on 30-6-1979, the assessee, it would appear, unilaterally wrote back this amount to the P. & L. account. In the I. T. proceedings, the assessees cas...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Swadeshi Commercial Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Cal)122
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 holding that the ITO had exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking provision of s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 for the purpose of computing relief under s. 90M of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1977-78 and 1978-79. In this particular case the original assessment for the year 1977-78 was completed on 13th December, 1979 and the assessment for the year 1978-79 was completed on 6th February, 1980 respectively. In the said assessments deduction under s. 80M (as it then stood) were allowed. Later, the provision of s. 80M was amended by virtue of provision of s. 80AA by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 which was given retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968. In view of the said amendment to the ITO treated the deduction allowed under s. 80M as mistake app...
Tag this Judgment!inter-state Security Agency and Another Vs. West Bengal Industrial Inf ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal36
ORDER1. This writ petition was moved on behalf of Messrs. Inter-State Security Agency and another praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents to cancel, rescind and/or with draw the impugned tender notice, being Infra/1M-l/89/Pt.I/2094, dated July 20, 1989 (Annexure 'H') issued by the West Bengal Industrial Infra-Structure Development Corporation respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the selection of General Security and Information Service, the respondent No. 3 as supplier of security guards and to show cause as to why fresh tenders would not be issued by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein and to act in accordance with law and a Rule was issued by this Court asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ in nature of mandamus should not be issued commanding the respondents from giving any effect to the impugned tender notice being Infra/M-1/89/1780, dated 20-7-89 being Annexure 'H' to the writ petition dated July 20, 1989 and also for...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Reena Mitra Vs. Ashesh Kumar Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: 95CWN185,II(1990)DMC343
S.S. Ganguly, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from the judgment and decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 24 of 1982 by the Id. Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore.2. Admittedly the parties were married on 21.11.60 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The respondent is a Lecturer in the Government College or Art and Craft, Calcutta and he is also an artist of some renown. The wife-appellant is also an artist and she is a teacher in a school A daughter was born to them on 12.12.66. From February 1971 they started living at 82/14/86/1, Jadu Park, Behala. On 26.9.77 the respondent-husband left the suit premises and started living at 24/3B, Raja Bagan Lane all alone From there the respondent sent maintenance and the rent payable for the aforementioned premises at Jadu Park upto 8.7.78. These facts are not disputed.3. The wife-appellant filed the aforementioned Matrimonial Suit f restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act 195...
Tag this Judgment!Aminchand Pyarelal Vs. Gift-tax Officers and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(Cal)73,[1990]185ITR264(Cal)
SUSANTA CHETTERJEE J. - The present rule was issued on December 18, 1978, at the instance of the writ petitioners, praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, withdraw, rescind and/or quash the notices dated November 3, 1976, issued under section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and the notices dated May 25, 1978, July 7, 1978, August 7, 1978, September 26,1978, November 7, 1978 and December 8, 1978, for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and all proceedings thereunder. The impugned notices have been addressed to Messrs. Aminchand Pyarelal, registered under the Partnership Act, 1932.Dr. Pal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has argued that the petitioners are not raising any questions as to the merits of the matter. Instead, the question of jurisdiction is raised as to the issuance of the impugned notices addressed to the petitioners, a partnership firm. According to him, a partnership firm is not liable to be assessed in respe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »