Kolkata Court November 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.
Sri Sachindra Chowdhury Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD614(Kol.)
1. All the above appeals are directed by the assessee against the orders of the Appellate Commissioner of Wealth-tax. The assessment years involved are 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1980-81, 1982-83, and 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. The only common grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is regarding the valuation of open vacant land at 52/5, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta which is affected under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Act 33 of 1976).The assessee is the owner of open and vacant land bearing No. 52/5 (portion) situated at Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta admeasuring 1539.18 sq.m. i.e. 23 cottahs. The said land is affected under the provisions of Act 33 of 1976 and the assessee had filed a statement of excess vacant land under Section 6 of the said Act. According to the assessee since the land was affected under Act 33 of 1976 and being in excess of the ceiling limit laid down under the said Act he was entitled to compensatio...
Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Labour Court and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT398(HC),(1993)IILLJ356Cal
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. In the instant writ petition filed on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Development Corporation Limited & Anr., the petitioner herein, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the First Labour Court dated July 31, 1992, whereby the prayer of the petitioner company to file additional written statement and/or objection under Rule 20D of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1985, has been rejected.2. Mr. K.P. Mookherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner company, submits that since there is no bar in framing additional issue in terms of Rule 20D of the Industrial Dispute Rules, the learned Judge, First Labour Court has committed an error which is apparent on the face of record in not allowing the opposite party company (petitioner herein) to file additional written statement in terms of Rule 20D of the aforesaid Rules. 3. Mr. Balai Ch. Paul, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman, after placing the provisions of Rule 20D of the Rul...
The Income Tax Officer and anr. Vs. Indian Overseas Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT132(HC)
Sunil Kumar Guin, J.1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.2. Admittedly there has been delay of 253 days in preferring the instant appeal and the petitioner-appellant has prayed for its condonation on the ground that delay was caused due to the rules of the executive business of the Government of India and also due to unavoidable circumstances. The petitioners have also contended that there was no laches or negligence on the part of the petitioners in the matter of preferring the instant appeal.3. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Court may admit an appeal even after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation if the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. It is a matter of discretion with the Court whether it will enlarge the period of limitation or not. Of course, this discretion is a judicial discretion and not arb. The Court must...
Mr. Ibrahim Mollah and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1992
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT410(HC)
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. The petitioners of this writ petition are employees of the respondent No. 2 Coal India Ltd. which is a Government of India Undertaking and are posted with the respondent No. 4 Central Coalfields Ltd. which is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. The petitioners are governed by the rules and regulations issued by the Coal India Ltd. (respondent No. 2) as well as the directives and policy decisions taken by said respondent. The petitioners were initially appointed in the non-executive cadre and were subsequently promoted to the executive cadre. As we get it from the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner No. 1 was promoted from the non-executive post of Accountant to the post of Accounts Officer in E-2 grade of the executive cadre on 7th August, 1987 and the petitioner No. 2 was promoted to the said grade of the executive cadre from the non-executive post of Accountant on 7th March, 1987. The executive cadre of the Coal India Ltd. (CIL) and its subsidiaries ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Surrendra Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: [1996]218ITR209(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1983-84, 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 justified in holding that the proper method of valuation of unquoted equity shares in Messrs. Aminchand Payarelal (P.) Ltd. should be yield method though the company had no profit-earning capacity but held valuable assets through its subsidiary and subsequent subsidiaries ?'2. The facts which have been incorporated in the statement of the case are as under :The assessee, Surrendra Paul and others, is a Hindu undivided family and the assessment year involved is 1983-84 for which the valuation date was March 31, 1983. The wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the year under reference was completed under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on March 21, 1988. The assessee, inter alia, held 4,500 equity shares of Amincha...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Surrendra Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Cal)252
AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. :In this reference under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 for the asst. yr. 1983-84 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 justified in holding that the proper method of valuation of unquoted equity shares in M/s. Aminchand Payarelal (P) Ltd. should be yield method though the company had not profit earning capacity but held valuable assets through its subsidiary and subsequent subsidiaries ?'The facts which have been incorporated in the statement of case are as under :2. The assessee M/s. Surrendra Paul & Ors. is an HUF and the assessment year involved is 1983-84 for which the valuation date was 31st March 1983. The wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the year, under reference was completed under s. 16(3) of the WT Act, 1957 on 21st March, 1988. The assessee, inter alia, held 4,500 equity shares of M/s. Aminchand Payarelal (P) Ltd. and disclosed the value of the ...
Rajendra Kr. Agarwal Vs. the C.E.S.C. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT491(HC),97CWN344
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.1. In the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondent No. 1 in treating the residential house of the petitioner as a commercial establishment and charging the petitioner on commercial rate for the electricity consumed at the residence of the petitioner.2. The petitioner states that he has a residential house at No. 44, Chakraberia Road (South) consisting of 5 living rooms besides one kitchen, 2 bathrooms, 2 store rooms and corridor. There are 59 electric points in the said dwelling house. The drawing room of the petitioner has 7 electric points consisting of 4 light points, one fan point and 2 plug points.3. It is the assertion of the petitioner that althroughout the petitioner was being charged for the consumption of electricity in respect of his dwelling house of the domestic rate.4. It is the allegation of the petitioner that suddenly by a letter of the respondents dated January 8, 19...
Bangali Raje and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1992
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1017Cal
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. The question raised in this writ petition is about the validity of the constitution of a Works Committee which has been constituted for an industrial establishment.2. There is an industrial establishment of Garrison Engineer, M.E.S., Morar, Gwalior belonging to Central Government employing more than hundred workmen. A Works Committee functions in that establishment. The term of existing Works Committee expired on July 8, 1992. A new, Works Committee for the two year term of 1992-94 was constituted by the Garrison Engineer by an order dated July 29, 1992 (Annexure P-1). By that order, seven representatives of the workmen and seven representatives of the employer were nominated to the Works Committee by the Garrison Engineer, who included himself as Chairman of the Works Committee to preside over the meetings of the Committee. It was also provided in that order that in his absence on leave etc., an officer officiating in his place would preside over the meeting. In...
Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR899(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the order passed, the Commissioner of Income-tax has held in substance that the contract for supply of a belt vulcanizing press to the petitioner resulted in accrual of income in India to the foreign supplier on which proper tax had not been paid. The facts of the case as recorded by the Commissioner in his order are as under :'Messrs. G. Siempelkamp Gabh and Co. (Messrs. G. S. G.) had sold a belt vulcanizing press to the applicant and had also entered into a separate contract for its erection in India. Messrs. G. S. G. had been paid DM 80,000 as per contract for this job and the bill submitted by it for DM 73,714 has been taken on record. As per agreement, the taxes, if any, were to be borne by the applicant. However, at the time of remittance of the above amount, tax was demanded under Section 195. The present petition is in respect...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Paharpur Cooling Towers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD540(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the income-tax assessment of M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt.. Ltd., the assessee herein. The assessment year is 1985-86 forwhich the previous year commenced on 2-1-1984 and ended on 31-3-1985, i.e., a period of 15 months.2. The first objection in the appeal is that the C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in holding that the business of Sahibabad Unit was set up during the period ending on 31-3-1985 relevant for the assessment year 1985-86 and thereby allowing the assessee's claim for depreciation, additional depreciation, investment allowance and pre-operative expenses. In its return of income for this year, the assessee had claimed that it had set up a new industrial unit, viz., Paharpur Plastics at Sahibabad, U.P. for the purpose of manufacturing plastic bags, that this new unit was subjected to trial run during the last month of the previous year, i.e. March 1985 and that the unit had made trial production. It was also stated that there was no comme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »