Kolkata Court February 1991 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.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Raja Baldeodas Birla Santatikosh.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Cal)134
AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. :In this reference under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 the following two question have been referred to this Court for the asst. yr. 1987-88 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the value of the shares gifted by the assessee trust to Birla Jankalyan Trust and subsequently the Birla Jankalyan Trust to Birla Janhit Trust, Birla Seva Trust and Calcutta Medical Research Institute, should not be included in the Net Wealth of the assessee even though the assessee trust had no power to alienate its assets ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unquoted shares of non-investment companies should be valued on net maintainable profit method and not on break-up value method in accordance with the provisions of r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957 ?'2. So far as the first question is concerned admittedly it is concluded by the decision of...
Hind Steel Corporation and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR80(Cal)
Ajit K. sengupta, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 216 of 1982, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1972-73 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the firm of Hind Steel Corporation was entitled to be registered under Section 184 read with Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1972-73 ' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the Income-tax Officer, vide his order dated December 22, 1973, under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has refused registration, inter alia, with the following observations : '... Therefore, this clause cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be taken for the allocation clause. It merely records the intention of the partners to continue the business. The fact remains that the partnership deed is not particular on the question of allocation of profit or loss. The other argum...
Smt. Vinita Devi Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR233(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference Under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, a short but interesting question has been raised. The assessee has movable assets including shares in joint stock companies. For the assessment year 1977-78, she submitted her wealth-tax return in which she claimed deduction of appropriate amount of capital gains tax which would have attracted in case she had sold the assets on the valuation date. The claim for deduction of notional capital gains tax was not allowed by the Wealth-tax Officer. When the matter came up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he also disallowed the said claim. Before him, it was contended that if the shares and other assets were sold by the assessee on the valuation date or earlier, she would have to incur some expenses like brokerage and would have incurred liability to pay capital gains tax on the difference between the sale and the cost of acquisition, as the net worth of the assets would have been the net sal...
Hemanta Kumar Mondal Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: 1993CriLJ82
ORDERSiba Prasad Rajkhowa, J.1. By this revisional application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15-6-88 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in case No. S.C. 28(9) of 87 thereby framing charge against the accused petitioner under Sections 307/109 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The main point urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Judge is not competent to peruse the case diary to frame a charge against the accused and he has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1959 Calcutta 276 : (1959 Cri LJ 586), Sk. Noormahammad v. The State. Elaborating his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of framing of a charge, the trial Court should consider only the police report and the documents sent along with it under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the case diary is some thing different from the documents referred to under Se...
Steel Crakers and Another Vs. M.S.T.C. and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal86
ORDER1. Governmental action cannot but only be fair. Fair deal, therefore, is the basis of all State action and in the event of any departure therefrom, Law Courts shall rise up to the occasion to declare it to be illegal and set right the wrong and to do so would be, a plain exercise of judicial power. In the event of any lodgement of complaint against a State; action, being unfair and in the event the Law Court finds the same to be of substance, the Court will lend its assistance to thecomplainant so as to compel the State to act fairly vis a vis the complainant. Technicality may arise but in my view sheer technicality ought not to outweigh the course of justice. Law Court exists for doing justice between the parties -- Law Court exists to remedy the wrong.2. In the present day context, State's involvement in ordinary trade and commerce cannot be undermined and as a matter of fact is a regular feature -- As such State action shall have to be scrutinised and in the event of there bein...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Iisco UjjaIn Pipe and Foundry Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR557],[1992]196ITR707(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the following common 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 incentive bonus paid by the assessee to its employees for the period relevant to the assessment years 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83, was an admissible deduction in computing the taxable income of the assessee ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that in the accounts furnished before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed deduction of different sums as ' incentive bonus', The payment .of incentive bonus was claimed to have been made to motivate the workers to produce more. The Income-tax Officer, however, treated ' incentive bonus' as part of bonus to which the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, were applicable. From the total amount, the Income-tax Offi...
Hanshree Apartment Owners' Association Vs. Hanshree Apartment Owners' ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: 95CWN1004,(1992)IILLJ423Cal
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J. 1. The petitioner in the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order of reference being Annexure 'P' to the petition referring an industrial dispute to the Presiding Officer, 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal being respondent No. 11.The case was hotly contested.2. The petitioner is an association of apartment owners under the specific name and style of 'Hanshree Apartment Owners' Association' having its registered office at 6, Hastings Park Road, Alipore, formed in accordance with the provision of the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act. The respondent No. 1 is the association of the employees rendering services to the petitioner and not to any individual member of the petitioner. The respondendts Nos. 2 to 7 are also the employees of the petitoner whose services have been terminated by the petitioner giving rise to the present case.3. It is not necessary to deal with eith...
Samarendra Nath Sanki and anr. Vs. Minor Biswanath Patra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT138(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, in Title Appeal No. 13/74 reversing those of the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No. 9/70.2. The facts, which are relevant for deciding this second appeal, may be briefly stated as follows :The plaintiffs-respondents have filed this Title Suit No. 9/70 praying for partition of the joint properties impleading the co-sharers Panchanan Patra and others and the transferees of the co-sharers. Before the learned trial Judge the defendants Nos. 5-8 contested the suit by filing written-statement. They took the plea that there was a previous partition between the parties and as a result thereof, they purchased the portion allotted to the co-sharers by virtue of such previous partition and the plaintiffs' suit for partition is, therefore, not maintainable.3. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the contention of the contest...
Binani Metals Ltd. Vs. the Cmc and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT423(HC)
Ajay Nath Ray, J.1. This is an application which was originally directed towards this end in view that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation while considering grant of sanction of the building plan of the writ petitioner in respect of 81 Netaji Subhash Road would not take into consideration certain development plans of the C.M.D.A. Annexure 'D' to the writ petition is the communication which was standing in the way of grant of Municipal permission to the writ petitioner.2. What had happened was that in the extra ordinary Calcutta Gazette of Friday 27th of June 1986 a notice had come out regarding certain Outline Development Plans of the C.M.D.A. The Municipal authorities on that basis and on the basis of their communications, of which Annexure 'D' to the writ petition is an example, were not inclined to grant building permission which might be inconsistent with the said C.M.D.A. plans if and When the same became finalised.3. On the 17th of December 1987 an interim order was passed by this...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. ShirIn Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: [1994]205ITR596(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and not under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as stated by the Tribunal. The following question of law has been referred for the assessment year 1973-74 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the assessee, while making voluntary disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, did not furnish details of jewellery, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim that the value of the jewellery should not be taken as per value given in the voluntary disclosure but should be determined on the basis of the valuer's report furnished at the time of assessment showing details of jewellery at a lower value, observing that there does not appear to be any dispute about the details and the nature of the jewellery articles ?'2. Shortly stated the facts are that the assessee filed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »