Kolkata Court August 1990 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Burlop Commercial (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: [1993]200ITR605(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1982-83, two questions have been referred to this court, one at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessee. The question which has been referred at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that where there were losses from an industrial undertaking the deduction allowable under Section 80J(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was permissible for being carried forward and set off against the profits in respect of the following assessment year ?'It appears that this question is now concluded by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M. A. Paper and Card Board Factory Pvt. Ltd. : [1986]160ITR877(Cal) . Following the said decision we answer this question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.2. The question referred at the instance...
Tag this Judgment!Annapurna Ganguly Vs. Dipak Kumar Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 95CWN806,I(1992)DMC88
Pabitra Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of the husband's petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The petitioner Dipak Ganguly was married to the respondent Annapurna Ganguly according to Hindu rites on 24th January, 1974 at Calcutta and a son Ashoke alias Bapi, was born out of the wedlock after 21/2 years. Since the marriage the respondent Annupurna lived in the matrimonial home till January 1982 when she left the house and stayed away till the filing of the petition for divorce. During the period between 1974 and January 1982 the respondent who is a woman of violent temperament, nagged, abused and humiliated the petitioner in presence of other members of the family. She failed and neglected to look after, the health and welfare of her husband, son and the mentally retarded brother of the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent often accused the petitioner of having illicit sexual connection with his sister-in-law and...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Anupam Ghosh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT300(HC)
Ganendra Narayan Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.8,87 passed by Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Banerjee in C.O. No. 11155(W) of 1986. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge dismissed the writ petition. Sri Anupam Ghosh was the Finance Director of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., which is admittedly a Government Company within the meaning of the Companies Act. In the letter of appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant, Sri Anupam Ghosh, it was,inter alia, provided that the service of Sri Ghosh was liable to be terminated on either side on three months' notice or on payment of three month's salaries in lieu thereof. The service of Sri Ghosh was terminated by an order dated 22.8.86 and he was served with a letter of termination with immediate effect and a cheque of three months salary in lieu of notice was enclosed with the letter, of termination. Such letter of terminaion was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition concerning Civil Order No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Chandra Bag Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC32,1992LC185(Calcutta),1992(61)ELT53(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents and particularly the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport to deliver the goods imported by him as fully described in Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner while coming back from Singapore carried with him electrical goods bought at Singapore and opted Red Channel for exit for Customs clearance. The Customs Authorities at the Airport made an inventory on December 10, 1989 of the goods imported out of which Serial Nos. 18 to 28 have been found to be not belonging to baggage items and the said items have been valued at Rs. 7,970. The value of the baggage was fixed at Rs. 9,835. However, after adjudication of the duty and imposition of fine by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport, the Superintendent of Customs (Administration), Calcutta Airport refused to clear the imported goods of the petitioner on ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ajoy Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT303(HC)
Mahitosh Majumdar, J.1. The writ petitioner holding the post of Protocol Officer prays for the following relief:A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued commanding the respondents to accord a proper pay scale commensurate with the duties performed by the petitioner, namely Rs. 800-1400/- with retrospective effect.2. The facts of the case are as follows :-The petitioner joined the post of Lower Division Clerk the High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta on March 11, 1968 and he was promoted to the rank of Upper Division Assistant, Appellate Side of this Court with effect from April, 1987.3. By an order dated October 29, 1987 the petitioner was appointed as Protocol Officer. The said order dated October 29, 1987 is quoted below :-'G.S. File No. 43 of 1987. The Government having sanctioned a post of Protocol Officer in the scale of pay of Rs. 380-910/- plus a Special Pay of Rs. 50/- per month in lieu of one permanent post of U.D. Assistant vide Judicial Department lette...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anderson Wright and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: [1993]200ITR596(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 2 (two) lakhs received by the assessee was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax ?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee, during the relevant previous year, received Rs. 2 lakhs as 'salami' for giving the third floorof premises No. 7, Red Cross Place, on leave and licence basis to Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Company Ltd. According to the Income-tax Officer, it was not a lease on long-term basis nor was the agreement registered, it was merely an agreement of leave and licence which was for less than 20 years (5 years only in the present case). He observed that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shiba Prasad Mukherjee Vs. Pradip Kumar Mukherjee and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal149
ORDERS.S. Ganguly, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2112 of 1984.2. Admittedly six branches of co-sharers including the parties to the present appeal who jointly owned premises No. 2, Jhamapukur Lane, Calcutta (disputed premises henceforward) amicably partitioned the same by a registered deed dated 6-4-84, in terms of which the lot 'E' went to the plaintiff-respondents and the lot 'B' to the defendant-appellant. The respondents filed the suit mentioned above for amongst others recovery of possession of a room (disputed room henceforward) appertaining their lot 'E' alleging that the appellant who had been possessing the said room since after the partition as their licenses refused to vacate the same on demand. The defence was that the partition had never been acted upon and that the appellant had been possessing the disputed room as a co-sharer of the disputed premises sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rashid Vs. Calcutta Minicipal Corporation and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal234,95CWN748
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. We regret our inability to agree with the learned trial Judge and our consequential inability to sustain the order under appeal.2. 'Business' is a word of protean significance and the expression 'business man' as used in Serial No. 8, No. 44 or No. 84 of Schedule IV of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980 would include a person engaged in any profession, trade or other commercial activities.3. The petitioner professes to carry on the business of a motor-mechanic. The learned Judge has not held that the petitioner does notcarry on any such business; he has only disbelieved the case of the petitioner that he carries business at the disputed premises and that he is a tenant in respect of his place of business. To quote the learned Judge (from paragraph 19 of the judgment), 'the petitioner has hopelessly failed to establish his tenancy right in the portion of the premises in question' or to prove that 'the petitioner was carrying on his motor car repairing busines...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Machinery and Appliances
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: [1993]200ITR569(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 198081. The question is whether interest under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be charged in respect of an assessment made under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee, a registered firm, filed its return under Section 148 of the Act on January 29, 1982. The Income-tax Officer charged interest under Section 139(8) of the Act treating the firm as an unregistered firm for the purpose of calculation of interest. The assessee filed an appeal against the said order charging interest under Section 139 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal holding that interest could be charged only on regular assessment and not on an assessment or a reassessment made under Section 147 of the Act. The Revenue took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the decision in the case of Charles D'Souza v. CIT : [1984]147ITR694(...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. West Bengal Process Server's Central ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT251(HC)
Ganendra Narayan Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 24, 1986 passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Rule No. 5131 (W) of 1981. By the said judgment, the learned trial Judge allowed the writ application and issued direction to treat the Process Servers who are the writ petitioners at part with the Seal Bailiffs servings in the City Civil and Sessions Court at Calcutta as well as the Presidency small Causes Court at Calcutta and to give the writ petitioners, the same pay scale, which was being enjoyed by the Seal Bailiffs with effect from April 1, 1981. The learned trial Judge also gave direction to pay arrear dues to the writ petitioners on re-fixation of their pay scales within a period of 60 days of the re-fixation of the pay scales. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of West Bengal and the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal have preferred the instant appeal.2. The writ petitioners were the West Bengal Process ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »