Kolkata Court May 1990 Judgments
Md. Alam (Referring Claimant) Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal42
ORDERJ.N. Hore, J. 1. The present appeal by the referring claimant is directed against the judgment and Award passed on March 23, 1979 and modified on September 11, 1979 by, the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in Case No. 25 of 1974 (v).2. The case relates to the acquisition of premises No. 267, Prince Anwarshah Road, plot Nos. 2 and 49, Lake Colony Scheme No. III comprising portion of C.S. Dag Nos. 919 and 920 of Mouza Chandpur under the General Improvement Scheme known as Scheme No. 114B of the Calcutta Improvement Trust in Ward Nos. 95, 96 and 97 of the Calcutta Corporation. The acquisition involves 5 Cot. 15 Ch. 18 Sft. of land according to the Award of the L.A. Collector and structures the reupon. The date of publication of notification under Section 49 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 corresponding to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is 16-3-67. 3. The Collector awarded Rs. 65,587.50 as value of land (5 Cot. 15 Ch. 185ft. @ Rs. 11,000/- per cottah), Rs. 41,185 as va...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Alam Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal82,94CWN1149
ORDERJ. N. Hore, J.1.The present appeal by the referring claimant is directed against the judgment and award passed on March 23, 1979 and modified on September 11, 1979 by the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in Case No. 25 of 1974(V).2. The case relates to the acquisition of premises No. 267, Prince Anwarshah Road, plot Nos. 2 and 49, Lake Colony Scheme No, III comprising portion of C.S. Dag Nos. 919 and 920 of Mouza Chandpur under the General Improvement Scheme known as Scheme No. 114B of the Calcutta ImprovementTrust in Ward Nos.'95, 96 and 97 of the Calcutta Corporation. The acquisition involves 5 Ch. 18 Sft. of land according to the award of the L.A. Collector and structures thereupon. The date of publication of notification under S. 49 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 corresponding to S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is 16-3-67.3. The Collector awarded Rs. 65,587.50 as value of land (5 Cot. 15 Ch. 18 Sft. @Rs. 11,000/- per removal cost. The total award was Rs. 1,06, 872.5...
Tag this Judgment!Biswa Ranjan Bose Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railway and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT53(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule is heard alongwith C. R. No. 10129 (W) of 1981 (S.S. Nayar & Company v. General Manager, Eastern Railway and Ors.), C.R. No. 6116 (W) of 1981 (S.K. Banerjee & Co. P. Ltd. v. General Manager, Eastern Railway and Ors.) and CO. No. 14075 (W) of 1986 (Ambika Prasad Shaw and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the case's, the learned Lawyers appearing for the respective parties have agreed for analogous hearing of all the 4 (Four) matters.2. The petitioners were allotted different plots at Chitpur Railway Siding for unloading and accommodating consignments carried by Railways. They have prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to resume and continue booking and placement of wagons by can calling, recalling and rescinding the impugned orders, notices and steps for taking possession of the petitioners' plots without taking recourse to the proceedings of law. It is stat...
Tag this Judgment!Trade Links Private Limited and anr. Vs. Collector of Excise and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT171(HC),1991LC191(Calcutta)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was issued on 18.11.1980 at the instance of the writ petitioner Trade Links Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner No. 2 as the Depot Manager of the petitioner praying, inter alia, for an appropriate writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or set aside the purported explanation to the notification dated March 20, 1980, the notices dated April 9, 1980, April 29, 1980, May 28, 1980 and October 28, 1980 and for declaration that no duty is payable in respect of the stcok of I.M.F.L. and Beer lying with the petitioner as on April 1980 and other consequential reliefs by way of restraining the respondents from levying and/or collecting and duty under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 on the stock of T.M.F.I. and Beer.2. It is stated in detail that the petitioner No. 1 Company received a purported notice from the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, whereby the petitioner company was direct...
Tag this Judgment!Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1990
Reported in: 1993(65)ELT484(Cal)
ORDERSusanta Chatterjee, J.1. The present Rule was issued on 18-11-1980 at the instance of the writ petitioner Trade Links Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner No. 2 as the Depot Manager of the petitioner praying inter alia, for an appropriate writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or set aside the purported explanation to the notification dated March 20, 1980, the notices dated April 9, 1980, April 29, 1980, May 28, 1980 and October 28, 1980 and for declaration that no duty is payable in respect of the stock of I.M.F.L. and Beer lying with the petitioner as on April 1, 1980 and other consequential reliefs by way of restraining the respondents from levying and/or collecting any duty under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 on the stock of I.M.F.L. and Beer. It is stated in detail that the petitioner No. 1 company received a purported notice from the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, whereby the petitioner company was ...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanath Kanodia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1990
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(Cal)15
ORDERSUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following four questions of law to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the provisions relating to the recording of statements on oath, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was nothing on record to show that any irregularity had been committed by the authorised office while recording the statement of the assessee on 29th August, 1980, when the said statement had clearly not other legal formalities been followed in the recording of the said deposition, and in relying wholly on the version of such recorded statement in arriving at its finding.(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessees version of the facts of the case as deposed by him on 5th November, 1980, was entirely an after thought, and in d...
Tag this Judgment!British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)278
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, before this Court :Ref. Nos. 575 and 576(Cal)/1985.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right to holding that the assessee being a non-resident shipping company, was not entitled to deduct the deferred rebate of Rs. 10,46,119 (asst. yr. 1976-77) and Rs. 9,30,341 (asst. yr. 1977-78) allowed to the shippers from the gross freight earning for the purpose of computation of the assessees income from shipping business in terms of s. 44B of the IT Act, 1961.R.A. Nos. 577 (Cal) and 578 (Cal)/851. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee being a non-resident shipping company was not entitled to deduct the deferred rebate of Rs. 4,81,895 (asst. yr. 1978-79) and Rs. 5,42,063 (asst. yr. 1979-80) allowed to the shippers from the gross freight earning for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Grindlays Bank Plc. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1990
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Cal)164,[1994]207ITR454(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 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 2,79,717 incurred by the assessee in respect of the writ petitions by applying Section 80VV of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In this proceeding the assessment year involved is 1979-80 for which the relevant year of account is the year ended on December 31, 1978.3. The facts found by the Tribunal as contained in the statement of case are as under :'In the relevant accounting period, the assessee paid a total sum of Rs. 3,21,207 on account of fees to lawyers in connection with various writ proceedings filed by the assessee challenging notices under Sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and other proceedings in the High Court. Out of the said sum of Rs. 3,21,207 a sum of Rs. 41,490 is in re...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Limited Vs. the 7th Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT169(HC),94CWN1015,(1991)IILLJ468Cal
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.1. This is an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petitioner moved the connected writ petition against an order which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition on an application made by the writ petitioner before the learned Seventh Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for according approval to an order of dismissal passed by the writ petitioner company. The learned Tribunal did not accord any such approval to the order of dismissal and the application under Section 33(2)(b) was dismissed on contest. Against the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal the Company moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained a Civil Order. There were certain other interlocutory proceedings regarding payment of money which we are not concerned with in the instant application under Section 17B. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the writ petitioner to the application under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Faridabad Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD190(Kol.)
1. The appellant company has filed both these appeals against separate orders of the CIT (Appeals), Calcutta both dated 11-7-88 on seven grounds in ITA No. 2546 (Cal.) of 1988 and only one ground in ITA No.2547/Cal/1988.2. The issue involved in all these grounds is common. That issue is in respect of incurring losses in the trading of shares of different companies.3. The appellant company has claimed the loss of (i) Rs. 1,49,300 on the sale of the shares of J.K. Synthetics, (ii) Rs. 67,200 on the sale of shares of Tata Tea Ltd., (iii) Rs. 39,150 on the sale of shares of Texmaco, (iv) Rs. 11,682 on the sale of shares of Hindustan Motors Ltd., for the assessment year 1985-86 and Rs. 31,350 for the assessment year 1986-87, (v) Rs. 1,47,350on the sale of shares of M/s. Escorts Ltd. and (vi) Rs. 95,230 on the sale of shares of M/s. Juari Agro. The appellant company purchased the shares of the above mentioned companies at a higher rate earlier and sold them at a lower rate later and thus in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »