Kolkata Court September 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.
Nisit Kumar Chattopadhyay Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT19(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus upon the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to revise his pay scale under ROPA Rule 1981 and in terms of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission and to pay him the arrear salary and to repatriate him to the parent concern i.e. the Respondent No. 3 in a suitable post considering in long experiences in the managerial affairs.2. His case is that Respondent No. 3 West Bengal Forest Development Corporation has issued advertisement in Ananda Bazar Patrika inviting application for the post of Chemist, selected the petitioner as Chemist by office order dated 13.10.1978. It was indicated in that order that he would be posted at the factory of Alok Udyog Vanaspati and Plywood Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as AUP.L) at Budge Budge. At the material time AUPL was taken over by the Respondent No. 3 as an authorised controller as per order of the Government of West Bengal. The petitioner in terms of the letter dated 9th Septem...
Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1991
Reported in: [1993]203ITR584(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1979-80, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the provisions of Section 40(c) are applicable to the expenditure on remuneration payable or benefits or amenities provided to the wholetime directors of the assessee-company when there is no finding that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs of the company ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the excess payment of Rs. 8,721 made on account of fluctuations in the exchange rate of dollars, at the time of repayment of the dollar loan, raised from ICICI for purchasing machinery from abroad was a capital expenditure and not an allowable revenue expenditure ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›