Kolkata Court May 1992 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Ramlalji Dhapidevi Golchha
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD312(Kol.)
1. The Revenue objects to the common order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-3-1990 on the following ground : That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the benefit of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, inspite of the facts that the assessee trust infringed the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) by investing the fund of the trust in modes otherwise than as laid down in Section 11(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. These appeals arise out of the income-tax assessments of M/s.Ramlalji Dhapidevi Golchha Charity Trust, the assessee herein. The assessment years under appeal are 1986-87 and 1987-88 for which the previous years ended on 12-11-1985 and 31-10-1986 respectively. For these two years, the assessee filed its returns on 22-2-1988 alongwith audited statements of accounts and Auditor's report in Form No. 10B.After examining the assessee's accounts, the ITO held that...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Rawla Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD509(Kol.)
1. Aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Commissioner the assessee has filed this appeal challenging the reopening action of the Assessing Officer and the addition made under Section 69 as unexplained investment in construction of godowns.2. To decide the controversy involved in this appeal few facts need to be narrated and they are: The assessment year concerned is 1975-76 and the previous year is 30-6-1974. The Assessment of the assessee was originally completed in a sum of Rs. 44,450. The assessee obtained a loan of Rs. 8 lacs from Vijaya Bank for construction of godown (approximately 22,000 sq. ft.) at Budge Budge Road, Santoshpur. The loan was sanctioned on 23-8-1974 on the loan proposal/scheme submitted on 5-6-1974 by the assessee to the bank. The assessee withdrew the loan amount of Rs. 8 lacs from the bank on the various dates commencing from 27-8-1974 to 21-12-1974. The assessee purchased land on 6-8-1974 for Rs. 47,500 admeasuring about 45 cottahs in plot/Dag No. 253 ...
Tag this Judgment!Debraj Wadhera Vs. Md. Ashraf Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT34(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application for re-calling, modifying and/or rescinding the order dated April 6, 1992, passed by me. By the said judgment dated April 6, 1992, this Court after hearing the submissions of both the sides and after considering the decisions cited from the Bar, was pleased to dismiss the Second Appeal, treating that there was no substance in the Second Appeal, for which the present application has been filed, for re-consideration of the said judgment.2. It appears from the said judgment, that this Court had noted the sub-missions of Mr. Sourendra Prasad Ghosh, learned Advocate for the tenant-appellant to the effect that 'sub-letting' cannot be inferred, and that must be proved, as it has been observed by Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Stationers & Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, reported in : AIR1990SC1208 .3. It further appears from the said judgment that this Court did not follow the said latest judgment of the Supreme Court, but was inclined to ...
Tag this Judgment!Flury's Swiss Confectionery (P) Ltd. Vs. Stephen Court Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1992
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT316(HC),96CWN1238
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. This Revisional Application is directed against Order No. 202 dated 10th of April, 1992 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1403 of 1977. On the basis of an application made on behalf of the defendant, which is the petitioner before us, the learned Trial Judge upon a finding, inter alia, that in view of an order of this Court it was not possible for the Court to debar the defendant from making available the relevant materials for coming to a finding on the relevant point for disposal of the relevant two issues in the suit, allowed the defendant's application for issuance of summons on two witnesses at the risk of procurement of the attendance of the witnesses by the defendant. One of the witnesses appeared and deposed. Another witness did not appear and the Court directed issue of fresh summons by a subsequent order. Such summons had been sent out and-in addition, die defendant claims to have sent a telex messag...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) Sakti Rupa Chakraborty Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT328(HC),96CWN1149
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. The petitioner in the present case, after passing her M.B.B.S. Examination, was selected for the Diploma Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, which, in abbreviated form, is known as D.G.O., of the Calcutta University and duly passed the same in 1978. The petitioner, thereafter, joined the West Bengal Health Service, and at the relevant time, was working as a Medical Officer in the Department of O & G in N.R.S. Medical College at Calcutta. Pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application for admission in the M.D. (O & G) Course of the Calcutta University for the session, commencing in the year 1988, and the petitioner being a West Bengal Health Service candidate, her case was sponsored by the State Government for appearance in the entrance examination for one of the five seats, reserved for the Medical Officers of the West Bengal Health Service. The list published upto 8th August, 1988 contained the petitioner's name along with the name...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT437(Cal)
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The petitioner has challenged two show cause notices, one dated 27th June, 1980 and the other dated 30th November, 1982. The first show cause notice is in respect of the period from 1-4-1973 to 11-8-1977 and the second show cause notice is for the period from 24-4-1980 to 31-7-1989. The period of limitation as laid down in Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules is 'Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short levied or not paid in full or erroneously refunded or any duty assessed has not been paid in full, the proper officer may, within six months from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been levied or paid, or which has been short-levied, or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or which has not been paid in full, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice:Provided that -(a) where any duty has not been levied or paid, has been short-levied or has not been paid...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chhabi Auddy Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT388(HC)
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.1. This writ application was allowed by a substantial order of 13th February, 1991 but on 17th June, 1991 the Headmaster functioning as Rector and the Secretary of the Hari Har Maha Vidyalaya at Ghutiari Sharif moved an application for variation/recalling/setting aside. modification of the said order of 13th February, 1991. In my Judgment of 13th February, 1991 I directed the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), South 24-Parganas, to forthwith grant approval as a full-time Assistant Teacher to the petitioner, Smt. Chhabi Auddy, and also directed the School authorities including the Headmaster (Rector) of the School to take immediate steps to appoint the petitioner as a full-time Assistant Teacher of the School, and also waive the age bar, if any. But on the basis of the application of 17th June, 1991 where allegations was made that the order was taken at the back of the School authorities and by suppressing of facts I kept in abeyance my order of 13th February...
Tag this Judgment!Manotosh Roy and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1992
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT205(HC)
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.1. In the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter alia, prays for a writ in the nature mandamus commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to rescind, recall and/ or withdraw the Central Government order passed by the Additional Secretary as per notification No. 2/1/87-P1C-1 dated April 16, 1987 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensioners, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi, as ultra vires the Constitution of India ; the petitioner also prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to settle and pay the pension to the petitioner (a) Rs. 3800/- per month from January 1, 1986 (being 50% of Rs. 7600/-) by notionally raising his basic pay from Rs. 2750/- to Rs. 7600/- per month as from the date in the new super time scale of Rs. 7300-100-7600 at par with the serving officers of his rank in the Indian Administrative Service less already drawn and to...
Tag this Judgment!Jokai India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD316(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 4-5-1988 and the controversy raised relates to disallowance of carry forward of investment allowance of Rs. 38,675 claimed on Leaf Carrying Basket Trailers.2. The assessee-company in the relevant period derived income by sale of tea grown and manufactured by it. The assessee claimed investment allowance on machinery and plant employed by it including Leaf Carrying Basket Trailers (hereinafter referred to as Trailers'). There is no discussion in the assessment order regarding disallowance but before the CIT (Appeals) it was stated that "presumed reason for the disallowance" was that the Trailers were considered transport vehicles.3. In appeal before the CIT (Appeals) it was contended that the Trailers were not intended for transport of goods or passengers from one point to another on road. The Trailers were used for carrying green leaves from ga...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Sreoshi Pal Chowdhury
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD32(Kol.)
1. The present appeals have been filed on 26-11-1990 by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Special Range-8, Calcutta against the order of CWT (Appeals), Range-X, Calcutta.2. The impugned order of the CWT(Appeals) was communicated to the Commissioner on 17-9-1990 as is mentioned in clause 9 of Form No. 'F' being form of appeal to the Tribunal under Section 24(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. According to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 the appeals should have been filed before the Appellate Tribunal on or before 16-11-1990 which is within 60 days from the date of communication of the order of the Appellate Commissioner to the CIT.The appeals are, therefore, barred by time by 10 days. By virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in Sub-Section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 24 if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »