Kolkata Court May 1991 Judgments
J. Sainsbury Plc. Vs. Oconnar (inspector of Taxes).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR462(Cal)
LLOYD L.J. The question in this case is whether the taxpayer company, J. Sainsbury Pic., can claim group relief under section 258 of the income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, in respect of trading losses of its subsidiary, Homebase Ltd., during the period 12 January, 1981 to 9 August, 1985.In October, 1978, the taxpayer company enterer into negotiations with a Belgaum company, G.G.I.N.N.O.B.M. ('G.B.') for setting up a joint venture company in the United Kingdom. The purpose was to develop c chain of home-improvement stores, with or without associated ragden centres. The initial intention was that the shares should be held in the proportion 70 per cent. the raxpayer company and 30 per cent. G.B. But in August, 1979, it was relaised - it is perhaps surprising that it was not realised before - that the taxpayer company would not be able to take advantage of the group relief provisions unless the new company were a 75 per cent. subsidiary. So the solution which the parties reached was a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabani Prosad Ghosh and Others Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal76,[1993]76CompCas349(Cal)
ORDERS.P. Rajkhowa, J.1.This appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 20th February, 1980 passed by the learned subordinate Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 18 of 1970.2. The plaintiff bank filed the Title Suit No. 18 of 1970 claiming (a) a decree for Rs. 4,43,734.95 p. (b) a declaration that premises No. 12/2B, Circular Garden Reach Road, Calcutta and 1A, Harisabha Street, Calcutta are charged with a first and paramount charge in favour of the plaintiff for repayment of plaintiffs dues: (c) a decree for sale of the immovable properties mentioned in prayer (b) above with liberty to the plaintiff to appropriate the sale proceedings inprotanto satisfaction of its claim in the suit and for interest and other reliefs.3. Plaintiffs case in short is that defendants 1, 2 and 3 were Directors of the Bango Steel Furniture Co. Private Limited carrying on business at No. 57, Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta, for short the Company. The Company was a customer of the plaintiff Bank an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Balai Chand Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1991
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT172(HC),96CWN133
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. The predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties instituted a suit, inter alia, for a declaration that he is/was a partner with the present revisional petitioners in a firm, known as M/s. Balai Chand Paul for accounts and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the said suit the plaintiff died and on his death the present opposite parties, claiming to be his heirs and legal representatives, made an application for substitution, which having been allowed by the impugned order, the instant revisional application has been preferred.2. The short question which arises in the present revisional proceeding is whether in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is or was a partner and for accounts, substitution of his legal heirs and/or representatives is permissible in law.3. We have heard Mr. Indrajit Mondal in support of the revisional application and Mr. Ashok Banerjee on behalf of the opposite parties. In terms of the provisions of Order 22, Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Sen and Another Vs. State of Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Cal308
ORDERA. M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. Notwithstanding my appreciation of and concurring in the judgment of my learned brother Ray, J., appearing hereinafter, I have thought it advisable to add a few words for more reasons than one. One reason is the importance of the question, on which our attention could not be drawn to any reported decisionof this Court. Another reason is that at some places the precision of the observations of Ray, J., has almost reached the state of aphorism (Sutra), which may require some amount of amplification (Vasva), so that persons not trained in law, but more concerned with copy-right, like authors and publishers, may know where they are.2. The work in question, being a book on Anatomy, is a 'literary work' within the meaning of Clauses (y) and (o) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'Act' for short). The author of the work is therefore the first owner of the Copyright therein under Section 17 and when published in his lifetime, his right shall su...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Govind Prasad Kanudia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR122(Cal)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. By the reference application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Central I, Calcutta, required the Appellate Tribunal to refer the following common questions of law arising out of a consolidated order of the Appellate Tribunal in W. T. A. Nos. 87 and 88(Cal) of 1989 to this court for opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in vacating the orders under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the partners of the firm, M/s. Kanudia Brothers, are entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the flour mill given by the firm on leave and licence basis to M/s. Govardhandas Viswanath, a third party? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the T...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Choudhuri Vs. Oriental Gas Company Undertaking
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT227(HC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, is against the judgment and decree dated 11th February, 1985, passed by the learned Judge, 4th Court, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 2398, dismissing the suit on contest, but without cost.2. The plaint case is that the appellant is the owner of premises No. 27A, Kalidas Patitundi Lane, Calcutta-26, situated under Bhowanipur Police Station. On the appellant's application to the respondent company, a State Government Undertaking, for supply of gas to his aforesaid premises for domestic consumption, the respondent company installed two gas meters Nos. 60606 and 60772 in the said premises. The numbers of the two meters were subsequently changed to 60975 and 11341 respectively, under Consumer Nos. A/c. No. 16F/610/10 and A/c. No. 16F/, 610/11. The further case of the appellant is that gas was being supplied to his premises from the road pipe by means of one pipe. The said pipe was bifurcated to supply gas si...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal Vs. We ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT58(HC),95CWN873
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, J.1. My learned brother Mookherjee, J., and I have discussed the matter in all its aspects and agreed with each other. Because of the great confidence that I have in my learned brother, I requested him to prepare the judgment and 1 thought that I would be adding a few words of mine on some of the important points involved in this appeal. But after going through the judgment prepared by Mookherjee, J., I have felt that in view of the weight of reasons in and all-comprehensiveness of the judgment, any further words from me would be an idle and useless parade. I, therefore, express my unreserved concurrence in the judgment of my learned brother, appearing hereinafter and do not propose to come out with a separate note as I find nothing which I can usefully add.Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.2. The present Appeal, is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 10th of March, 1989. By the said order the learned single Judge a...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sudhangshu Kumar Laha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT211(HC)
Amulya Kumar Nandi, J.1. This revision is. directed against Order No. 17 dated 29-4-89 passed by the learned District Judge, West Dinajpur at Balurghat in Title Appeal No. 81 of 1987.2. The opposite party No. 1 filed a suit against the opposite party No. 2 State of West Bengal and others for relief in respect of the disputed property. The State Government entered appearance in the suit and took a plea in paragraph 8 of the written statement that the State had already taken possession of the disputed tank which had been leased out to Binsira Gram Panchayat. According to the defendant the said tank was excavacated by the Gram Panchayat under the development scheme and the Gram Panchayat is still in possession of the tank. Inspite of this defence the plaintiff did not choose to implead the Gram Panchayat in the suit. The suit had already ended in favour of the plaintiff. The State has preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 1 of 1987 which is pending before the learned District Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Sneha Traders Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT43(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. This appeal was originally initiated against the refusal of the Trial Court to pass any interim order. On 19-8-1988 we passed the following order :-'Mr. Nirmal Mitra and Mr. Dipak K. Deb, Advocates of this Court are appointed Joint Special Officers.(a) They shall pay the customs duty on the subject goods to be calculated on the invoice value, (b) The Special Officers shall further realise a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) from the petitioner to be retained by them until further orders of this Court. Upon deposit of the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- with the Special Officers and upon payment of the customs duty, on the basis of the invoice value, the respondents shall release the goods to the Special Officers and allow removal of the goods from the bonded warehouse, (c) The petitioner shall pay warehousing charges before the goods are removed by the Special Officers, (d) The Special Officers shall retain the goods in a separate godown to be provided by t...
Tag this Judgment!Mining Machinery and Explosives (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: [1993]202ITR710(Cal)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. 1. Pursuant to the orders of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal : Assessment year 1964-65 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses of Rs. 33,000 incurred in connection with rent for plot of land and Rs. 3,852 incurred on account of the foreign tour of Shri T. H. Iyer are not deductible as business expenses under Section 30 and/or Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' Assessment year 1965-66 : '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses of Rs. 27,000 incurred in connection with rent of plot of land and Rs. 10,000 incurred on accountof foreign tour of Shri S.K. Agarwalla are not deductible as business expenses under Section 30 and/or Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts, inter alia, are that the assessee is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »