Kolkata Court October 1991 Judgments
Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Basant Investment Corpn.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-31-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD258(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the department is against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30-3-1988, for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The first ground of appeal is regarding the CIT (Appeals) is direction to treat the loss of Rs. 69,280 on account of share transaction as normal business loss, as against treatment of the same by the Assessing Officer as speculative loss.3. The ITO treated the loss as speculative on the ground that the shares were sold out before taking delivery of the same. Thus the sale took place before the assessee was in possession of those shares and hence the Assessing Officer concluded that the transaction is nothing but speculative one. In order to prove the above point the Assessing Officer tabulated the share transactions in the assessment order which is as follows:--Sl. Name of the Name of Purchase Sale Name LossNo. Co. whose Broker Date Date of Date of of (Rs.) shares were of Con- Acquisition Contract brokers purchased & tract Date of sold - No. transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Jaladhar Chakraborty and ors. Vs. Power Tools and Appliances Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT64(HC),[1994]79CompCas505(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 237, 397, 398, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 (referred to as 'the Act'). Of the six petitioners, petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together with respondent No. 4 are trustees of a public charitable trust. The said petitioners and . respondent No. 4 are shareholders in Power Tools and Appliances Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') as trustees of the said trust. The total shareholding of the petitioners in the company is 28,200 of which 24,700 equity shares are' held by the trustees. Respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are representing the present directors of the board of the company. These respondents hold about 75 per cent. of the shares in the company. 2. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement have been made against the management of the company by the petitioners. The petitioners have asked, inter alia, that the board of directors be superseded. 3. The admitted facts of the case are : The authorised share ...
Tag this Judgment!Satchidananda Samanta Vs. Ranjan Kumar Basu and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal222,(1992)1CALLT463(HC)
ORDERMonoranjan Mallick, J.1. TheSubordinate Judge, 10th Court, Alipore heard the T. S. No. 1/5 renumbered as T. S. 49/73 together with T. S. No. 57/61, T. S. 32/62 and T. S. No. 103/65 abalogously under order of the High Court, Calcutta and have delivered a common judgment and decree dated 18th December, 1974.2. Being aggrieved Satchidananda Samanta, the plaintiff in T.S. No. 1 / 54 has filed F.A. No. 21/76, Ranjan Bose, the plaintiff in T.S. No. 57/61 has filed F.A. No. 22/76 against the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 103/65, Achudananda Samanta, the plaintiff of that suit preferred the T.A. No. 183/75 and Satchidananda Samanta preferred T.A. No. 135/75 in the Court of the Ld. District Judge, Alipore. They have now been transferred to High Court, Calcutta so that F.A. No. 21/76 and F.A. No. 22/76 can be heard analogously with T.A. No. 135/75 and T.A.No. 183/75. Be it noted that nobody has preferred any appeal against the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 32/62.3. The fac...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krishna Granthagar and Others Vs. Ahi Bhusan Ghosh and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal264,(1992)1CALLT396(HC),1992(1)CHN94
ORDERMonoranjan Mallick, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. .Addl. District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah dt. 17-3-87 in T.A. No. 293,' 84 affirming the judgment and decree passed . by the 3rd Asstt. District Judge, Howrah in T.S. No. 63/81. The facts which may be necessary for disposing of the appeal may be briefly stated as follows :--The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has brought the above Title Suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction alleging that the plaintiff along with the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 are the exclusive owners of the suit property bearing Holding No 9, Naba Kumar Nandy Lane and were in possession of the suit property therein. He is an old man and used to live in Calcutta and for his service had to remain mostly at Beharampur while his nephews respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have beenresiding at Bangalore for their avocation. The plaintiff sometime, in 1980 on receipt of Summons in connection with...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Statesman Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR582(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1984-85 :R. A. No. 279 (Cat) of 1990 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee's expenditure on commission paid to sales agents amounting to Rs. 1,57,65,878 and that paid to advertisement agents amounting to Rs. 1,53,88,321 are not covered by the provisions of Section 37(3A) read with Section 37(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in vacating the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is the owner of a well-known newspaper 'The Statesman'. In its return for the assessment year 1984-85, it claimed deductions of Rs. 1,57,65,878 and Rs. 1,53,88,321 as commission paid to sales agents and advertisement agents, respectively. The above d...
Tag this Judgment!Aaj Kaal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT446(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The present writ petition was moved challenging an order of reference dated August 17, 1990 passed by the Government of West Bengal (Department of Labour) under the provisions of Sub-section (2A) read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.The order of reference is as follows :'Whether termination of service of Shri Arunangshu Chakraborty, Principal Correspondent, is justified To what relief, if any, is he entitled ?'2. This writ petition has come up for final hearing after completion of affidavits in the presence of learned Advocates for the petitioner, respondent No. 5 as well as State of West Bengal.3. The facts of the case is as follows :-The petitioner Company is a newspaper organisation publishing Bengali daily from Calcutta in the name of 'Aaj Kaal', (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner newspaper). The respondent No. 5, Arunangshu Chakraborty (hereinafter referred to as the respondent workman) had joined the petitioner newspaper...
Tag this Judgment!The Board of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta Vs. the Lowland Tanker C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-1991
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT364(HC)
A. M Sinha, J.1. This appeal by the Plaintiff is against the Judgment and decree dated 19th September, 1979, passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Admiralty Suit No. 6 of 1973.2. This case arises out of Collision which took place in the River Hooghly between the vessel 'Border Terrier' owned by the respondent No. 1 and the Tug Agnijoy (hereinafter referred to as the Tug owned by the appellant. As a result of the said collision the tug sank and eight crew members of the Tug lost their lives. The appellant filed a suit in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this court for damages against the defendant No. 1 as the owner of the 'Border Terrier' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tanker'). The said collision took place on 28th May 1972. The Thanker had arrived at Budge Budge in charge of a river pilit earlier on the date, that is, 28th May 1972 and had anchored at a distance of about a quarter of a mile down the river from No.1 Jetty of Budge Budge.3. At about 15.18 hours, the Tanker w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vikram Swarup
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-1991
Reported in: [1993]202ITR889(Cal)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. In these references made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for deduction of liabilities towards provision for income-tax, proposed dividend and gratuity from the value of the assets of the company for the purpose of determination of the value of the unquoted shares of Messrs. Paharpur Cooling Towers (Pvt.) Ltd. on the break-up value method in accordance with Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, though the directions of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) were in contravention of the express provisions of Sub-clauses (b), (e) and (f) of Clause (ii) of Explanation II to Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?'2. Before going to the merits of t...
Tag this Judgment!Satadal Savings and Investments Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD117(Kol.)
1. The appellant in this appeal wants a direction to the ITO to carry forward and set off of determined loss of Rs. 2,21,381 as per the provision of Section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The appellant filed its return of income on 5-12-85 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,57,470 whereas the due date for filing the return was 31-7-85.No notice under Section 139(2) was issued by the ITO nor the appellant filed form No. 6 seeking extension of time for filing the return. There is also no evidence on record that the ITO impliedly granted time.3. The ITO had stated in the assessment order after computing the loss that since the return has been filed after the stipulated time the net loss computed above is not brought forward to the next year. In the first appeal the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the same. The appellant is now before us in second appeal.4. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the assesses that carry forward of determined loss is his "vested right" under Section 72 an...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Chetri and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2374
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on 31-7-87 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Session Case No. 33 of 1986 (Session Trial No. 2(6) of 1986). By his impugned order the learned judge convicted the two accused appellants Mohan Chetri and Bazley Rahaman under Section 394 read with Section 397 I.P.C. and also under Section 412, I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each for conviction under Section 394 read with Section 397, I.P.C. and also to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each for conviction under Section 412, I.P.C. with the direction that both the sentences imposed on each shall run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the evening of the 5th March, 1984 at about 7/7.30 p.m. while PW 1 Ratanlal Lakhotia, his father Motilal Lakhotia and his brother-in-law P W 4 Ratanlal Somani were present in the Godighar of PW-1, three miscreants entered th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »