Kolkata Court January 1991 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Damyanti Devi Jhunjhunwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1993]203ITR142(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1976-77, 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 holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was wrong in invoking the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, inasmuch as the Wealth-tax Officer had not committed any error in excluding the value of the immovable property from the net wealth of the assessee because the ownership of the said property was not transferred by the vendor to the assessee by execution and registration of a deed of sale ?'Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee owned one-third share of a flat at 127, Jolly Maker Chamber No. 11, Bombay, from which she earned rental income of Rs. 2,000 per month. She paid Rs. 50,686 in November, 1975, for acquiring the said flat. While making assessment, the Wealth-tax Officer inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Unique Manufacturing and Marketing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR231(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1981-82, 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 right in holding that the cost of the original shares were to be reduced spreading it over the bonus shares ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a limited company deriving income from, inter alia, share dealings during the previous year under consideration which was the calendar year 1980. The assessee claimed that it had suffered a loss in its share dealings. It had purchased 19,900 shares of M/s. Kesoram Cotton and Industries Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 8,32,230. During the previous year, it received 4,950 bonus shares from the same company against its original holding of 19,900 shares. The original 19,900 shares were sold during the previous year for Rs. 6,97,120. The assessee retained the bonus shares with i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Satyabhama Ganeriwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR401(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1978-79.2. Shortly stated, the facts are that, in pursuance of an agreement, the assessee purchased a flat at Calcutta from Messrs. Chitralekha Housing Corporation and, on payment of a total consideration of Rs. 99,294, she obtained possession of the said flat in February, 1975. No deed of conveyance was drawn up. The Wealth-tax Officer, therefore, recorded a finding that the assessee did not acquire any title to the said flat. He, therefore, declined to allow exemption under Clause (iv) of Section 5(1) of the Act.3. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax allowed the exemption.4. The Department took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and endorsed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax.5. On the aforesaid facts, the following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Rama Shankar Bajoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR132(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax and wealth-tax liability on income and wealth voluntarily disclosed by the assessee under Section 14(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, subsequent to the valuation date is an admissible deduction in computing the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71 ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the Wealth-tax Officer reopened the assessments for the said years finalised earlier as a sequel to the disclosure of income and wealth made by the assessee under the concerned Ordinance, 1975, as a result of a search conducted by the Department The concealed wealth disclosed by the assessee was added back by the Wealth-tax Officer but he did not allow the income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dilip Kumar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Cal254
ORDER1. Having heard Mr. Moloy Kumar Basu with Mr. Arabinda Sen for the writ petitioner and Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutt for the State respondents and considering the materials on record, a short point of law has arisen in this case inasmuch as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1-1-91 and the order as communicated under Memo dated 17-12-90, copies whereof are Annexures 'E' and 'F' to the writ petition upon declaration that the provisions laid down in S. 16(4) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979, as ultra vires. A notice has since been served upon the learned Advocate General to appear.2. Upon perusal of the materials on record this Court finds that the Vehicles bearing registration No. WBR 2400 (Bus) has been seized on 26-9-90 for non-payment of tax and additional tax under S. 3 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1979, and under S. 4 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Additional Tax Act, 1989, and along with relating offences without permit, without registration c...
Tag this Judgment!Durgapur Cinema and anr. Vs. 9th Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT151(HC),[1991(63)FLR635],(1992)ILLJ701Cal
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. An interpretation of Sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has come up for consideration in the instant writ petition filed on behalf of M/s. Durgapur Cinema and Others.2. By enacting Sub-section (4) it has been provided as follows:'In a proceeding before Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be.'3. In a dispute referred to the 9th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Durgapur- 16, in Case No.X-25/90 Durgapur Cinema Ltd. v. Their Workmen, Shri M.K. Basu, Judge, Ninth industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Durgapur-16 passed an order on November 27, 1990 which has been impugned in the instant writ petition.4. By the said order the learned Tribunal Judge in accepting the objection of the workmen in the matter of representation...
Tag this Judgment!Ensign Tankers (Leasing) Ltd. Vs. Stokes (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR419(Cal)
SIR NICOLAS BROWNE-WILKINSON V.C. - This is an appeal by the Crown against the decision of Millett J., who allowed an appeal by the tax-payer company, Ensign Tankers (Leasing) Ltd., against a decision of the special commissioners. The commissioners held that the taxpayer company was not entitled to claim initial allowances under section 41(1) of the Finance Act 1971 in respect of two transactions related to two films ('Escape to Victory' and 'Outland'). Section 41(1) provides;'Subject to the provisions of this chapter, where - (a) a person carrying on a trade incurs capital expenditure on the provision of machinery or plant for the purposes of the trade, and (b) in consequence of his incurring the expenditure, the machinery or plant belongs to him at some time during the chargeable period related to the incurring of the expenditure, there shall be made to him for that period an allowance (in this chapter referred to as a first-year allowance which shall be of an amount determined in ac...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moran Tea Co. (i.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR702(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1979-80.2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee, a limited company, was following the mercantile system of accounting. Under the terms of a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Calcutta High Court, the Indian undertaking of Moran Tea Co. Ltd., a sterling company, was acquired by the present assessee as a going concern with all its assets and liabilities as at the close of the business on December 31, 1977. The assessee made provision for bonus at Rs. 15,40,720. The provision was made for the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee made payment of bonus of Rs. 18,08,911. The said payment exceeded the provision by Rs. 2,68,191. The excess payment was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that it related to the earlier year.3. The assessee came up in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ...
Tag this Judgment!Tribeni Tissues Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR487(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of investment allowance on tubewells and weighing machines ?'2. The facts are in a narrow compass. In the original assessment, which was completed under Section 143(3) on September 24, 1982, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had disallowed the entire claim for investment allowance despite the fact that the appropriate investment allowance reserve had been created and that details of the plant and machinery were filed and were on record. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated February 23, 1983, held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not justified in withholding the investment allowance due to the appellant.3. The Insp...
Tag this Judgment!Budheswar Mahato and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT228(HC)
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The eleven appellants were placed on trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Purulia to answer common charges under Sections 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Against ten of them (except Budheswar), a separate charge under Section 149 read with Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code was framed while against Budheswar a charge under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code was framed. Besides, a charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant, Sarat Mahato. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge recorded an order of conviction and sentence against all the appellants in respect of the charges respectively framed against them and aggrieved thereby, they filed the instant appeal.2. Bereft of details, the case of the prosecution is as under. At all material times, the appellants and the deceased Panchami and her family members were residents of village Sindurpur under the police station of Man- ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »