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.
Puspa Perfumery Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR248(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1983-84, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether the excess income-tax of Rs. 11,949 borne over the liability for income-tax taken over by the assessee-company is a capital expenditure and not entitled to revenue deduction in the nature and circumstances of the case ? 2. Whether the income-tax liability of the vendor-firm amounting to Rs. 11,949 and borne by the assessee-company is not a trading liability and not entitled to revenue deduction in the nature and circumstances of the case ? 3. Whether the excess income-tax of Rs. 29,000 borne over the liability for income-tax taken over by the assessee-company is a capital expenditure and not entitled to revenue deduction in the nature and circumstances of the case ? 4. Whether the income-tax liability of the vendor-firm amounting to Rs. 29,000 and borne by the assessee-compan...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moran Tea Co. (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR429(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law for the assessment year 1982-83 has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of the entire expenditure of Rs. 12,54,382 under rule 6AA of the Income-tax Rules which was inserted with effect from 1st August, 1981, and not of Rs. 5,75,392 on pro rata basis for the period 1st August, 1981, onwards ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company filed a return for the assessment year 1982-83 (previous year being calendar year 1981) declaring loss of Rs. 21,04,910 on June 25, 1982. The claim of loss was enhanced to Rs. 22,60,350 in the revised return. The assessee also claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act; in particular, it claimed deduction of Rs. 12,54,382 expended...
Mahadeb Khan and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT66(HC)
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.1. The two writ petitioners are the Members of the Managing Committee of the Malidaha High School in the district of North 24-Parganas. The fact, in short, is that the said School was established by the local people and is a recognised and aided one. With the permission of the Director of School Education a clerk was appointed but a Class IV staff was not appointed since 1986. On 4th August, 1990 the Managing Committee of the School formed a Selection Committee for the selection of a Class IV staff. It is alleged that the Secretary of the School was not satisfied with the Selection Committee as it did not consist of the persons favoured by him and as such he wanted to do away with the resolution forming the Selection Committee on 4th August, 1990. The Secretary convened another meeting on 17th August, 1990 but it was not convened after serving a clear seven days' notice which is mandatory under the Statute and there was no item on the agenda to cancel the previ...
Rajendra Kumar Sethia Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR218(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, 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 correct in holding that jewellery owned by the assessee is not covered by the exemption provided in Section 5(1)(xiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for works of art ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee who owned certain jewellery claimed that jewellery was exempted under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Act, on the ground that it consisted of works of art. The Wealth-tax Officer negatived the claim of the assessee and, on appeal, the action of the Wealth-tax Officer was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal, at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.3. At the hearing Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, learned advoca...
Gopal Das Mundar Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 2003(154)ELT51(Cal)
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. On a prosecution having been launched against him petitioner before us charges have been framed against him under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act and under Section 85(1)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act. 2. It has been urged on behalf of the accused petitioner that as a departmental proceeding for confiscation was already initiated against him under Section 111 of the Customs Act and the same has been decided in his favour holding that the goods in question were not liable to be confiscated, the petitioner cannot again be proceeded under Section 135 of the Customs Act and face a criminal prosecution on that score. 3. We do not think that the determination of the authority concerned under Section 111 of the Customs Act one way or the other can be an absolute legal bar to any subsequent prosecution under the Customs Act for the same set of acts or omissions. But it is one thing to have a power under the law and is entirely a different thing how that power shou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›