Kolkata Court April 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.
Lakshmi Narayan Board Mills Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: [1993]205ITR88(Cal)
SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - On an application of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax, 1961, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of carry forward of loss and running expenses to the assessee ?'The assessee, however, challenged the Tribunals order by one more question on the ground of perversity which the tribunal declined to refer.In pursuance of an order under section 256(2), the tribunal drew up a statement of case and referred the said additional question separately. The question is as under :'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal that -(i) it cannot be said that the assessee has any intention to restart the business; and(ii) it cannot be said that the assessee was in a position to carry on business are perverse and/or contrary to the materials on record ?'The assessment y...
M/S Raghunath Prasad Phoolchand Ltd., and Another Vs. the General Mana ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Cal307,(1992)2CALLT460(HC)
ORDER1. The application is directed against a cancellation of purchase order sent by the respondents which is the last annexure to the petition.2. The writ petitioners' case is that there was no scope for any cancellation as no contract had been at all entered into and no purchase order in the first place could have been issued.3. The respondents have stated in the aforesaid order of cancellation that risk purchase was being made at the cost of the writ petitioner and that amounts would be withheld from the writ petitioners outstanding bills.4. The purchase order was in respect of a supply of 40,000 brake block boxes.5. The petitioner quoted its offer by Us letter dated 18th April, 1991 which contained certain price petition clauses.6. After the writ petitioner obtaining an extension of the validity period for 90 days they received a communication dated 18th July, 1991 wherein the respondents accepted the terms offered by the writ petitioner with only these added words 'subject to docu...
i.T.C. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR126(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta J.1. In his reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1981-82, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the conditions laid down in Sub-clause (ix) of Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 40A(8) were satisfied ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in presuming that the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was erroneous in accepting that the amount of Rs. 58,96,594 was exempt under Sub-clause (ix) of Clause (b) of the Explanation, to Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the initial depreciation under Section 32(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act is required to be deducted i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gokul Chand Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR14(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1983-84, 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 was justified in law in recalling its earlier order dated August 7, 1990, without recording a finding that the said order suffered from a mistake apparent from the records ? 2. Without prejudice to question No. 1, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the miscellaneous application of the assessee on the ground that its order dated August 7, 1990, suffers from mistakes apparent from the records ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Tribunal has no inherent power like a court of law to review its own order ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the Assessing...
Manmatha Krishan Mitra Vs. Dena Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Cal362
1. In this suit the plaintiff claims for possession of the two separate portions of premises No. 83/1, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta by reason of expiry of the demised terms.2. The brief of documents in this case was marked by consent of parties as Ext. A. The first document in Ext. A is a copy of lease dated 6th May 1966 by way of which one portion of the said premises was demised for a term of 21 years. The term was agreed to commence from the 1st of July 1966 and wasdue to expire with the expiry of the 30th June 1977. It cannot be disputed that on the day this lease was executed, it was outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.3. Thereafter on the 5th March, 1969,the parties executed two other Deeds -- both of which are registered. These two deeds of the same date form documents 2 and 3 of Ext. A: Manmatha Krishna Mitra, the plaintiff, who came to give evidence, even though he was 88 years old, said that he did not remember which of the two deeds was executed first. But...
Arrah Sasaram Light Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: [1995]215ITR870(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred two questions, one relating to the assessment year 1981-82 and the other relating to 1982-83.2. The first question that relates to the assessment year 1981-82 is referred at the instance of the assessee and is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessment has been made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by Section 153 ?'3. The facts leading to the question are as under :The return for the assessment year 1981-82 was filed on July 30, 1983. As there was a variation between the income shown in the return and the income proposed, the Income-tax Officer drew up a draft under Section 144B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 6, 1983. The assessee submitted its objection by a letter dated September 12, 1983. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner communicated his directions...
Dileep Singh Mehta Vs. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Cal25
ORDER1. This is an application foramendment of written statement. The third paragraph of the written statement is intended to be amended by deleting the statement therein that one Mr. A.B.A. Dubash who took part in certain discussions with the plaintiff in or about March 1986 was not the Managing Director of the defendant.2. Pages 3, 42, 53 and 57 of the petition have been placed before me and it is said on the basis of the minutes of the board meeting of 5th August, 1986 and a copy intimation to the Registrar of Companies that the said Dubash was appointed as an Additional Director ony from 5th August, 1986 which was far later than March, 1986 and that he resigned from the Board as per the intimation dated 5th Feb. 1990.3. The defendant has no doubt admitted the Managing Directorship of Dubash in the written statement but there is no pointed date given in relation to the duration of the said Managing Directorship. Moreover, even though the written statement contains such an admission,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Collieries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR857(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The facts are that the assessee-company disclosed dividend income of Rs. 42,680 and Rs. 47,680, respectively, for the two years under reference. The Income-tax Officer computed proportionate expenses for earning such dividend at Rs. 8,099 and Rs. 15,250, respectively, and deducted these amounts from the gross dividend of Rs. 42,680 and Rs. 47,680, respectively, computing the net income from dividend at Rs. 34,581 and Rs. 32,420, respectively, for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. Thereafter, he allowed deduction under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961,. on such net income from dividend for both the years under reference.2. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that there was no fresh investment during the assessment years in shares wherefrom any dividend has been earned. Hence the expenses other...
R.K. Gupta Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT352(HC),96CWN1157,(1993)ILLJ931Cal
ORDERShyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged withholding of his promotion from Grade E-6 to Grade E-7, i.e., to the post of Additional Chief Minning Engineer with effect from March 2, 1990 though duly selected by the concerned Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).2. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows: -The petitioner joined the nationalised Coal Company as a taken-over officer in 1971 and then joined Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. on the formation of the said Company. At the time of take-over the petitioner was in E-3 Grade as Mining Engineer. Petitioner was promoted for the first time by BCCL in June, 1973 from E-3 to E-4 Grade as Senior Mining Engineer. The petitioner was promoted on October 13, 1980 with notional effect from January 14, 1980 to E-5 Grade as Supdt. of Mines. Petitioner while working as Senior Mining Engineer as well as while working as Supdt. of Mines received several letters of commendation from the higher authorities....
Balaram Dey Vs. Smt. Chaya Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT179(HC),96CWN907
1. The present Revisional application is directed against a judgment and decree in a proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendant is the petitioner before this Court. At the very outset we keep it on record that the prayers for relief on behalf of the petitioner have been made by invoking the provisions only of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. We have heard Mr. Kundu in support of the Revisional application and Mr. Roy on behalf of the contesting plaintiffs/opposite parties.3. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act creates a jurisdiction of a summary nature. The two basic elements on consideration of which the Court is required to exercise this jurisdiction are actual possession and the nature of the manner of dispossession. These are elements findings of which are bound to be findings of fact and as such, are not ordinarily liable to interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless such interference is called for on satisfaction of well recog...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »