Kolkata Court August 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.
Vinar and Co. and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: [1992]193ITR300(Cal),[1992]65TAXMAN338(Cal)
Head Note:INCOME TAXProsecution--OFFENCE UNDER S. 276B--Delay in payment of TDS by assessee-firm--Firm not a person within meaning of s. 276B--Prosecution not valid.HELD :A company or a firm being a juridical person is not liable to be prosecuted under s. 276B inasmuch as it could not have been imprisoned. The provision left no discretion to the court to impose the fine contemplated by it as an alternative to imprisonment. The accused was in any case punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which could extend to six months. A juridical person could not have been imprisoned and could not have been prosecuted for the purpose of s. 276B. For the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1976-77, the provisions of s. 276B were not available and, therefore, a partner of the firm could not be prosecuted for a default of the firm. The show-cause notice issued after such a long lapse of time cannot be held to be valid.Income Tax Act 1961 s.276B SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - It is the contention of the writ petit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. American Export Lines Inc.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: [1993]203ITR17(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee incurred losses in the assessment years 1968-69, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. The losses were carried forward and set off against profits of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1973-74 onwards. In setting off such losses, the Income-tax Officer, who made the original assessments for the assessment years1974-75 and 1975-76, did not make any distinction between unabsorbed depreciation and business loss and allowed a total loss of Rs. 8,63,760 for the assessment year 1968-69, Rs. 1,7...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR66(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1980-81 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 17,37,497 incurred on payment of commission on sales cannot be treated as sales promotion expenses and, therefore, it cannot be taken into account while computing the disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the expenditure of Rs. 19,058 paid as penalty under Section 5C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts relating to the first question are that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 17,37,497 as se...
indo Swiss Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sudharani Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT127(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. This Second Appeal is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against a judgment of reversal.2. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction of the appellant-defendant on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation and for building and rebuilding. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit and such decree of dismissal had been reversed by the lower appellate court, which decreed the suit substantially upon a finding that the plaintiffs had proved the case of reasonable requirement for their own use and occupation and occupation of their family and the requirements for building and rebuilding through additions and alterations was only to create some more living, space and as such was an extension of the ground of reasonable requirement.3. Regarding the ground of reasonable requirement for building and rebuilding, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had prepared estimate, had submitted plan before th...
Goodricke Group Ltd. (No. 1) (Successors-in-interest to Hope Tea Co. L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR261(Cal)
AJIT K. SENGUPTA J. - In this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1977-78 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of Rs. 59,891 incurred by the assessee-company due to fluctuation of exchange rates in remittance of profits from India to its U. K. office was not an allowable deduction in its income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1977-7 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that these surtax liability under the Companies (profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1977-78 was not an allowable deduction in the income-tax assessment for the said assessment year ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under section 80G of the Act was allowable from 100 per ce...
Hind Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: [1992]195ITR450(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 for the assessment year 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that carry forward of deficiency is not permissible under Section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the assessee-company suffered loss in the new industrial undertaking and consequently in disallowing the assessee's claim for carry forward of the deficiency for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee claimed relief under Section 80J for Unit No. 2 which had commenced production in the year under reference. The Income-tax Officer allowed the said deduction under Section 80J although the industrial undertaking suffered loss. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the several determinations made b...
Amitava Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT293(HC),(1991)IILLJ213Cal
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This writ petition was moved on behalf of Amitava Mukherjee praying, inter alia, for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the respondents directing them not to give any further effect to the Memo. No. WBFS/6510/RC-A/ AMO/84-85 dated October 31, 1988, issued by the Director West Bengal Fire Service, being respondent No.2 herein, which is Annexure E to the writ petition.2. By the said communication, in reply to the letter demanding justice filed on behalf of the writ petitioner, the Director of West Bengal Fire Service informed Mr.Asoke Kumar Jana, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, to the following effect:(a) Your client has given you incorrect as well as incomplete instruction in the matter of panel and appointment from the panel of Assistant Mobilising Officer under the Directorate of Fire Service.(b) There were total number of 23 vacancies in the said post of Assistant Mobilising Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AMO, for brevity) under th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Margaret's Hope Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR747(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75, the following question of law has been referred to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the assessee-company claimed before theIncome-tax Officer that the unexplained deposits represented short-term loans advanced by one M/s. Hukumchand Santalal of Post Office Sonada, Darjeeling, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the cash credit appearing in the books of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,28,639 should be treated as income of the assessee-company from its tea business thus allowing the benefit of exemption under Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, even though the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the source of the deposits ?'2. We reframe the question as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the ca...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Birla Janahit Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Cal)340,[1994]208ITR372(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1977-78, two questions of law have been referred to this court. The first question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Raja Baldeodas Birla Santotikosh made a legally valid transfer of shares of Messrs. Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills Ltd., and the assessee was the rightful owner thereof, being assessable on the dividend income arising from such shares and also entitled to tax credit under Section 199 of the Income-tax Act ?'This question came up for consideration before us in Income-tax Reference No. 51 of 1980 (CIT v. Birla Janhit Trust) for the assessment year 1975-76, where the judgment was delivered on August 7, 1990. Following the said decision, we answer the question by saying that the transfer in favour of the assessee-trust was voidable but until it is avoided, and irrespective of the fact ...
Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1990
Reported in: [1994]208ITR712(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in admitting a new ground for the first time before the Tribunal, namely, the question of benami with regard to the share income of Smt. Savitri Debi and Deepak Prakash ? 2. Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the wife and son of Sri Satyanarain Prasad were really representing the Hindu undivided family and 52 per cent. of the business profits of Messrs. J.S. Distributors was to be added to the income of the assessee is based on any evidence and/ or material and/or partly on irrelevant materials and partly on its failure to consider the relevant materials and/or based on mere conjecture or surmise and perverse ?' The facts relating to this reference are that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »