Kolkata Court May 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 Income-tax Vs. Karanpura Collieries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: [1993]201ITR498(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77, the following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to examine the details of expenditure claimed by the assessee and deal with their allowability from the view point of the necessity of the assessee-company to retain its status as a company under the Companies Act, 1956, and the expenditure directly or indirectly incurred for earning the income which has been assessed under the head 'Other sources'?'2. The facts relating to this reference are that from a scrutiny of the accounts, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee-company did not carry on any business whatsoever during the relevant previous year and had only income from interest in investments amounting to Rs. 5,560 and that the expenses were claimed at Rs. 75,044 under diffe...
Sankar Prasad Sinha Mahapatra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT365(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned Memo No. 2199-GA dated 18th December, 1984 and Memo No. 5/GA dated 2nd/ 4th January, 1985 issued by the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, West Bengal and the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Bankura being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively and the copies of the orders are Annexure 'D' to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the duties performed by the petitioner as Headmaster of Putiadaha High School, District-Bankura and not to withhold the payment of salary to the petitioner as the Headmaster of the said School since the month of December, 1984 and other consequential reliefs. It is stated in detail that the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of Kantore Mahadev High School, District-Midnapore with effect from 1st January, 1982 and his appointment as Headmaster of that School was approve...
Chandra and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT537(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Member - Judicial of the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as C.E.G.A.T.) dismissing the petitioners' application for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal.2. The material facts are briefly as follows :3. The petitioner-Company carries on business in gold. The petitioners sent some gold to a certified goldsmith for converting the same into ornaments. On the same date some Customs Officers raided the shop premises of the goldsmith' and seized various quantities of gold including the gold sent by the petitioners. Two show cause notices were issued by the Customs Authority. One was under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Act) and the second was under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 1962 Act). The petitioners replied to the said show cause notices. The adjudication proceedings were held by the Assistant Collector of Cust...
Gouri Prasad Goenka and Family (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: [1993]203ITR700(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1977-78, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the land owned by the assessee was rightly valued by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,68,600 instead of Rs. 1,93,600 estimated by the Wealth-tax Officer and Rs. 77,000 estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed before the Wealth-tax Officer two valuation reports in respect of the plot of land being 37F, Paikpara Road, Calcutta. The first report dated November 30, 1972, estimated the then market value of the plot at Rs. 77,000. The second report dated July 8, 1977, showed the value at Rs. 11,650, the decline beingattributed to the depressing effect of the passage of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the as...
Radheshyam Soni and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2926,95CWN655
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. A Civil Appeal, if not dismissed summarily under the provisions of Rule 11 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is to be listed for hearing with notice to the respondent and if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. The cleavage of opinion as to whether such dismissal can be for default of appearance only, or on the merits also, has now been sealed by the Explanation added to Rule 17(1) of Order 41 by the Amendment of 1976, providing categorically that 'nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits'.2. The law in the Criminal Jurisdiction is however different, as would appear from the provisions of Section 423 of the preceding Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, now replaced by Section 386 of the new Code of 1973, which is in pari materia with its predecessor in the old Code of 1898. Section 386 of the prese...
Sm. Binapani Sengupta Vs. Prosanta Kumar Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT128(HC)
Amulya Kumar Nandi, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1985 by the 3rd Additional Court of District Judge Murshidabad. The petitioner in Misc. Case No. 36 of 1978 filed a case for pre-emption Under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The Learned Munsif granted the pre-emption prayed for. In appeal the pre-emptee did not obtain any relief. The pre-emptee therefore preferred this revision.2. It is contended on behalf of the pre-emptee that the Misc. Case Under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act can no more succeed. In view of the definition of land as given in Section 2(7) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act of 1955 by amendment in 1981, land of every description has been brought within the purview of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Some exception of course has been made. But Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act has been brought within this amended definition of land retrospectively wi...
Kulmohan Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: 1994LC473(Calcutta),1992(58)ELT455(Cal)
JudgmentRuma Pal, J.1. The petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit and manufactures Electronics Products. In August 1987 the petitioner imported diverse spare components, parts and accessories from Singapore. The Bills of Entry were filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner when the Bills of Entry were being processed the Superintendent (Preventive) of Customs seized the papers and documents as well as the imported goods. Such seizure was made on 13-8-1987. Summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued to the petitioner's representative on 12-10-1987. The petitioner was granted a personal hearing by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. According to the petitioner no indication was given regarding the charges against the petitioner even in the course of the adjudication proceedings. An order was passed by the Collector of Customs by which the value of the goods was enhanced, the goods were directed to be confiscated...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›