Kolkata Court January 1992 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.
Indian Bank Vs. Textile Inland Agencies and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Cal296,[1995]84CompCas799(Cal)
1.This is a Bank's suit for recovery of loans granted to a partnership firm which is the first defendant in this suit. The four partners of the Firm are defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the suit.2. The first four defendants have filed a joint written statement and the fifth defendant has filed a separate written statement.3. The parties went to trial on the follow-ing 8 issues:1) Is the 5th defendant at all liable as a partner of the first defendant?2) Is the suit liable to file against the 5th defendant for misdescription of Kamal Kanoria as Kamal Kamania?3) Are the defendants liable to pay a sum ofRs. 1,63,773.59 as alleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint?4) Did the defendants admit or acknowledge their liabilities?5) Did the plaintiff fail and neglect to realise the dues from the Firms on whom the bills were raised within the period of limitation as alleged in paragraph 6 of the Written Statement and if so have the defendants lost valuable right therefor?6) a) Did the defendants agree ...
Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: [1994]210ITR991(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The assessee has challenged a notice of reassessment under Section 148 issued on March 20, 1991, for the assessment year 1980-81. The original assessment was made under Section 143(3) dated September 26, 1983. Under the amended provisions of Section 147, a notice may be issued reopening the assessment where an assessment has been made under Section 143(3) beyond four years at the end of the relevant assessment year if the escapement of income from tax takes place by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all material facts necessary for that assessment year.2. There is no dispute that the notice has been issued after the end of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The question is whether there was any omission or failure of the assessee in this case. In the recorded reason, the Income-tax Officer has stated that the reopening was for excessive grant of investment allowance which was not admissible in acco...
Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD582(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] dated September 19, 1990.2. The first and the main controversy relates to Rs. 2057.77 lakhs disallowed and added back in the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The relevant facts leading to the above addition are as follows.3. The assessee, a well-known public limited company, carried business of manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes in the previous year ending December 31, 1983, relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. The Company maintained its books of account on mercantile basis. The goods manufactured and produced by the asssssee were liable to Central Excise Duty and it is an admitted position that total liability incurred in the relevant period amounted to Rs. 8312.41 lakhs. The assessee actually paid towards duty a s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: [1992]196ITR179(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta , J. 1.In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1981-82 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that preparation of food in the hotel constituted manufacture or production of any article or thing within the meaning of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, in that view, the assessee was entitled to get investment allowance under that section ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company runs a five star hotel in Calcutta under the name and style of Hotel Hindusthan International. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee-company claimed investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 5,78,500 on plant and machinery installed during the accounting year.3. A reserve of Rs. 3,75,000 was created for this purpose. The Income-tax Officer ...
Madan Mohan Manna Vs. Smt. Chitra Manna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Cal33,(1992)2CALLT46(HC)
ORDERL.M. Ghosh, J.1. The petitioner,Madan Mohan Manna, filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree against the respondent/wife annulling the marriage and such other reliefs. The suit was contested by the respondent/ wife, Chitra Manna. The Learned trial judge dismissed the suit.2. This appeal has been preferred against that judgment of dismissal.3. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties took place on 12-3-80, according to Hindu rites and customs. It is also not disputed that the parties resided together in the matrimonial home for about seven days. According to the petitioner, after that, the respondent's father took her away with her ornaments and other articles. The petitioner further alleged that on diverse dates, he made attempts to bring back the wife, but all these attempts became futile as the respondent refused to come to the matrimonial home. On 7-7-80, the petitioner sent a registered letter through advocate, calling upon the resp...
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR495(Cal)
Mahitosh Majumdar, J.1. The writ petitioner, by this writ application, prays for a mandate to set aside only a part of the order so far as it relates to the interest as would appear from page 53 of the writ petition which is annexure 'E' to the writ petition.2. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to waiver of interest as the delay could not be attributed to the petitioner-company.3. Mr. Rupen Mitra led by Mr. Nandalal Pal, learned advocate, claimed and contended that the petitioner did not challenge the other part of the order. There is no disclosure as to whether the amount which is required to be paid has been paid or not. Mr. Mitra further claimed that this order is not liable for interference unless the entire order is otherwise challenged.4. Miss Seal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, claimed and contended that the delay not being attributable to the petitioner-company, they are entitled to the benefit of rule 40(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1...
Texmaco Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT506(Cal)
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This writ petition was moved on 11th of March, 1986. On that date directions for affidavits were given and the department was given liberty to proceed with the impugned show cause notice. The petitioners were directed to reply to the show cause notice with three weeks from date.2. It appears that the show cause notice has not been proceeded with. The case has now come up for hearing after six years. I see no reason to wait for the department to complete the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice.3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners purchased ball bearing from the market from various suppliers. Copies of the invoice have been annexed showing that the Central Excise duty has been paid on the ball bearings by the manufacturers. The petitioners had to pay price of ball and roller bearing as well as the Central Excise duty at the rate of 15 per cent.4. The petitioners used these ball bearing for the purpose of manufacture of textile machi...
Camac Leather (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT349(HC),1992(59)ELT48(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. These two applications are taken up together. The matter is about a claim for customs duty benefit claimed by the writ petitioners because of a certain Notification bearing No. 224/85/CUS. The relevant part of the said notification is set out below :-'Exemption to specified goods imported for use in leather industry. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to -do, hereby exempts the goods specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed, when imported into India for use in the leather industry, from-(a) So much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of forty per cent ad valorem; and(b) the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madgul Udyog
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: [1994]208ITR541(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference made at the instance of the Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court for its opinion for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1978-79 to 1980-81: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity of the construction of multi-storeyed buildings consisting of flats is nothing but manufacture and production of flats which are articles within the meaning of Clause (iii) of Sub-section (4) of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in that view in further holding that the assessee is entitled to relief Under Section 80J for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1978-79 to 1980-81 ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm. At all material times during the relevant previous years corresponding to the assessment years under reference, the assessee-firm was...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Bharat Charity Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Cal)232,[1993]199ITR420(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1973-74, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provision of Section 21A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is not attracted in this case and, therefore, the net wealth of the assessee-trust is exempt under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessment year involved is 1973-74, the relevant valuation date being March 31, 1973. The assessee-trust did not file any return of its net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the aforesaid year. The Wealth-tax Officer issued notice under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act on February 1, 1978. In response to the above notice, the assessee filed its return of wealth showing nil wealth claiming to be a charitable trust. The Wealth tax Officer ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »