Kolkata Court February 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.
The State of West Bengal Vs. Sm. Muktakeshi Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT380(HC)
Jyotirindra Nath Hore, J.1. These four appeals which arise out of the same judgment have been heard analogously and the present judgment will govern them all. Title Suit No. 231 of 1967 filed by Smt. Muktakesi Das (respondent in S.A. No. 1797 of 1971), Title Suit No. 232 of 1967 was filed by Hrisikesh Das (respondent in S.A. 1798 of 1971), Title Suit No. 233 of 1967 was filed by Netai Charan Das (respondent in S.A. No. 1799 of 1971) and Title Suit No. 234 of 1967 was filed by Gourhari Das who is respondent in S.A. No. 1800 of 1971. Common questions of fact and law were involved in all the four suits which were heard analogously by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Contai and disposed of by a common judgment. The four title appeals preferred by the State against the judgment and decree passed in the said four suits were also heard analogously by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapur and disposed of by a common judgment.2. Plaintiffs of the above suits filed the suits f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: [1995]214ITR583(Cal)
ORDER--Assessment without proper and detailed enquiry about the creditworthiness of alleged shareholders--Prejudicial to revenue--Jurisdiction rightly invoked under s. 263 by CIT.HELD :The CIT came to the conclusion on the facts that matter relating to shareholders and their subscription to the shares of the assessee-company was not looked into by the assessing officer while framing the assessment relevant to the subsequent assessment year. Enquiry made by the CIT revealed that there was no existence of NKT Co. where A and M were stated to be working. They could not also produce any document to show that they were the employees of NKT Co. and that they were receiving salaries from the approved firm in the year under reference. The ITO only enquired of six of the shareholders. If the CIT was of the view that the assessment was not made after proper and detailed enquiry which should have been made before the subscription on account of share capital was accepted, it cannot be said that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›