Kolkata Court March 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.
Smt. Sunanda Devi Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: [1993]204ITR842(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1979-80, and 1980-81, the following questions have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of the estimated amount of capital gains tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that 'compulsory deposit' should be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing net wealth of the assessee?' 2. In view of the judgment delivered on February 18, 1991, in Matter No. 1158 of 1984 (Smt. Vinita Devi Singhania v. CWT : [1991]191ITR233(Cal) ), the first question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.3. The facts leading to the second question are that the assessee claimed that the amount deposited under the Compulsory ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Mridula Kanoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: [1993]203ITR214(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. The order dated January 29, 1991, is recalled. The matter is heard.2. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 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 the assessee was entitled to deduction of the debt in full under Section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, without deduction of the amount of the allowance available under Section 5(1A) of the said Act ?'The facts are that the assessee, Smt. Mridula Kanoria, in her wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1979-80, claimed deduction of Rs. 9,37,635. The Wealth-tax Officer allowed exemption for shares at Rs. 1,50,000 under Section 5(1A) and, consequently, to that extent, he reduced the claim of liability of the assessee under Section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act under the impression that the amount borrowed was utilised for acqui...
Grindlays Bank P.L.C. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Cal)46,[1993]201ITR148(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 questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the circular of the Central Board of Revenue dated October 6, 1952, read with the subsequent Circular dated October 9, 1984, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Tribunal was justified in treating as the income of the assessee the sum of Rs. 2,40,77,729 being the interest on sticky advances and/or debts doubtful of recovery credited during the year in question to the interest suspense account ? 2. Whether, in view of the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT : [1986]158ITR102(SC) , the Tribunal was justified in holding that the question whether interest on sticky loans credited to the interest suspense account is taxable has been finally concluded by the said major...
Mrs. Sheila Davar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR469(Cal)
ORDER--Penalty under s. 18(1)(a)--Delay in filing return--Application under s. 18B for reduction or waiver of penalty levied--Order by WTO pursuant to direction of CIT under s. 18B--Not appealable.HELD :An appeal would not be competent against an order passed under s. 18B or any order passed in pursuance thereof. When making a s. 18B application, the assessee admits his default but asks for reduction or waiver of penalty. Therefore, the quantum of penalty is the only question pertinent. No further question as to whether the assessee made any default, nor whether there was any reasonable cause for delay in filing the return or not, in other words, no further question as to whether penalty was imposable or not under s. 18(1)(a) would arise. The CWT as well as the WTO would only be concerned with the quantum of penalty. Hence no appeal lies against any order passed, pursuant to the order made under s. 18B.CASE LAW ANALYSIS :Smt. Ichhabai Panchal v. CWT (1982) 137 ITR 232 (Cal) followed.AP...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Anil Kumar Rampuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR222(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following question has been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1975-76 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the municipal taxes 'leviable' and 'not actually levied' should be deducted in computing the net annual rental yield ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee has interest in properties known as Bikaner Building and 38, Shakespeare Sarani. The Wealth-tax Officer valued the aforesaid properties by adopting the yield method. While working out the valuation of the aforesaid properties, he deducted municipal taxes as levied by the Corporation of Calcutta on the aforesaid properties. The gross rental incomes from the two properties as adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer were much higher than the valuations adopted by the Corporation of Calcutta for the purpose of imp...
In Re: Avinash Jain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT9(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5, the Municipal Assessment Tribunal to admit and decide the Municipal Assessment Appeal No. 213 of 1990 filed by the petitioner before Municipal Assessment Tribunal at Calcutta in compliance of Section 178(2)(iv) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and Section 14 of the West Bengal Apartment Ownersh Act, 1972, and for cancellation of the order dated the 4th February, 1989, passed by the Hearing Office-1, the respondent No. 3 and the purported red card dated the 30th July, 1989, passed by the Assistant Assessor XXII, Calcutta Municipal Corporation communicating an order that the assessment of annual valuation has been fixed at Rs. 80,350/- in respect of the premises No. 190C, Alipore Road, Calcutta, effective with period commencing from the 3rd Quarter of 1984-85 and for other consequential reliefs.2. It is stated in detail that the respondent a...
Dilip Kumar Pyne Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC133
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This is a reference under Section 82 B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The following question has been referred to this Court;-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is correct in holding that the Terms of the provisions of Section 70 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, at the time of seizure, statement can be recorded by any officer, and not. necessarily the seizing officer proper interpretation of the words 'that officer' appearing in Section 70 is to be determined ?2. Since this question has not been properly framed by the applicant, we reframe the question as follows:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that in terms of the provisions of Section 70 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, at the time of seizure, statement can be recorded by any officer, and not necessarily the seizing officer ?3. The facts which have been recorded by the Tribunal in the Statement of Ca...
Pragati Engineering (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal139,(1991)2CALLT378(HC)
ORDERPrabir Kumar Majumdar, J. 1.This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 10th September, 1984 passed by a teamed single Judge of this Court staying the Suit No. 697 of 1983 of the appellant under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. The suit was filed on the basis of several contracts entered into between the plaintiff and defendant. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant for price of goods sold and delivered.3. The respondent made an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for staying of the suit filed by the plaintiff/ appellant, inter alia, contending that each of the contracts on the basis of which the suit has been filed contained an arbitration clause and such arbitration agreement covered the subject matter of the suit. It was contended on behalf of the respondent before the Trial Court that each of the said contracts provided that the Project Engineer, special Project Circle, Coimbatore shall be the Arbitrator for any disputue a...
Sk. Aftab Vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT531(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioners are claiming to be the owner of Truck No. WBL-4160. On 16-5-1990 the said truck was detained on the allegation that it was carrying contraband goods. A show cause memo was issued on 30th October 1990 in which the truck has been valued at Rs. 1 lakh. It appears from the statement enclosed in the Show Cause Notice that according to the driver the contraband goods were loaded in the said truck on the instructions of one Kasem alias Kasem Bhai of Katapukur, Ramayan Road, Calcutta-88. The said Kasem was stated to be the owner of the truck. It also appears that there is no such person as Kasem and that from the RTA Office, Beltolla, Calcutta, the names of the petitioners were recorded as the owners of the truck. By a letter dated 14-11-1990 the petitioner No. 2 requested inter alia for release of the truck and for diverse documents for the purpose of replying to the show cause notice. It is alleged that no reply was given to the letter. By two separate letters ...
Syed Mohammad Hasan Vs. K.C. Das, Deputy Chief Controller of Import an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC20
Manoranjan Mallick, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the proceeding being Case No. C. 2773/83 pending in the Court of 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 429, 468/471 of the IPC, Section 135 of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947 in which the charge has been framed by the learned Magistrate and is pending for disposal before the learned Trial Judge. 2. The petitioner has urged two points in quashing the proceeding. The first point is that on a complaint filed by the Prosecution Agency on 30.11.83 against the present petitioner, the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate on 27.1.84. Evidence before charge have not been completed within four years from that date and charge had only been framed on 12.12.89. But according to Sub-section (3) of Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code inserted in the Act by Criminal Procedure Code (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1988 if ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »