Kolkata Court July 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.
Jatia Investment Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR497(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1976-77 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that as the assessee was only investing funds in shares, it was not doing business ? 2. If the answer to the above be in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing registration to the firm on the ground that the assessee was doing no business ?'2. The brief facts obtaining in the case are that the business of the assessee-firm is said to be investment in shares and finance as per the objects mentioned in the deed of partnership. The deed of partnership was made on April 20, 1975, constituting a firm consisting of ten partners and admitting one minor to the benefits of partnership to start business:3. In respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, the asse...
Sewduttroy Rambullav and Son Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR580(Cal)
ORDER--Not in accordance with law--No error of jurisdiction--Assessment cannot be annulled--Fresh order to be passed.HELD :The assessing officer violated the principle of natural justice. It is mandatory for him to pass a reasoned order and communicate because in its absence the assessee's statutory right to appeal becomes nugatory. Therefore, the order suffers from a supervening irregularity within the jurisdiction which need be eliminated. So long as there is no error of jurisdiction, the proceeding cannot be annulled. The Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the officer is invalid but it is not a nullity. It is quite fair, in the circumstances, to ask the assessing officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving the assessee opportunity of being heard. APPLICATION :Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.143(3) Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63, the fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dewar's Garage (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR763(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 :'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 2,12,266 incurred for repairing the premises No. 4, Council House Street, Calcutta, was an allowable expenditure in computing the income of the assessee from business?'2. Shortly staged, the facts are that the assessee is a company and the (reference relates tq the assessment year 1975-76, for which the previous year ended on June 30, 1974. The assessee-company claimed deduction of Rs. 2,12,266 as expenses for repairing of the business premises at No. 4, Council House Street, Calcutta. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim of the assessee as he was of the opinion that the assessee having been a tenant of the premises had no obligation to make extensive repairs to the rented building. According to the Income-tax Officer, the extensive repair and r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindusthan Motors Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR839(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the resolution to forgo interest was passed after the close of the accounting year, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the interest forgone as business expenditure in computation of the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that interest on the balance outstanding money advanced to its subsidiary company was not part of the real income of the assessee and was, therefore, not liable to be assessed to tax ?' 2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are as under :The assessee is a company and the relevant assessment year is 1971-72, The corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, ...
Md. Abdur Rahim Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT41(HC)
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 1986 passed by a learned Single Judge discharging the Rule. The case of the writ petitioner, inter alia, is that he joined as a Tahsildar on 13th January, 1971 after executing an Agreement and in terms of the said Agreement the appellant's service is governed by the Government Servants' Conduct Rules and the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The Subdivisional Officer, Alipur Sadar by an order dated 24th December, 1977 terminated the petitioner/appellant's service with effect from 1st January, 1978 in terms of Clause 11 of the said Agreement. His grievance is that his services were terminated without affording him any opportunity to show cause and without giving him any opportunity of hearing or conducting any departmental enquiry into his conduct. The charge against him is : (i) manipulation of false signatures which he admitted in writing ; (ii...
Shree Ganesh Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Moore Avenue Properties (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT475(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. This Revisional application is directed against Order No. 153, dated 5th September, 1991, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Third Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 110 of 1966. By the said impugned order, the learned Assistant District Judge rejected an application under Section 17A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the said application.2. From the materials, produced before us as parts of records of the case, it appears that in a proceeding for eviction, instituted by the opposite party/landlord, the defence of the petitioner-tenant had been struck-out under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The trial culminated with an ex parte decree for eviction. Till that date, there was no application under Section 17A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. From the ex parte decree, t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.P. Dalmia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR267(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (VI), Calcutta, the Tribunal has sought for our opinion on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the remuneration of the assessee as managing director of the company, Messrs. Pile Foundation Construction Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., is assessable under the head 'Salary' as there existed the relationship of the employee and employer ?'2. The matter arises out of the income-tax assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1978-79, 1980-81 and 1981-82, respectively. The assessee has shown the director's remuneration under the head 'Salaries' and claimed standard deduction under Section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee, as managing director, enjoyed wide power and control on the affairs of the company and acco...
P.P. Ginwalla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: [1994]206ITR613(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in merely following its earlier orders for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 and upholding the disallowance of the claim for exemption of jewellery under Sections 5(1)(viii) and 5(1)(xiii) of the Act ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not upholding the claim of exemption of jewellery in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (3) Whether the Tribunal's decision was perverse on the point of taxation of jewellery having not considered the material points in dispute with reference to Section 5(1)(xiii) read with Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee is the sole beneficiary and executor of the will left by his wife, Mrs. Hila...
Dr. Amar Chandra Saha Vs. the President, Calcutta Society for Preventi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT137(HC),96CWN1086
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 7th September, 1989, passed by a learned Judge of this Court on a Writ application filed by the appellant. The learned Judge dismissed the writ application refusing to interfere with the impugned order dated 29th November, 1988.2. The appellant, a Veterinary Inspector in the respondent Calcutta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, was appointed by an order dated 31st July, 1981, issued by the respondent Calcutta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') as Hospital Surgeon of the Society with effect from 1st August, 1991. The said order provided that the total remuneration which the appellant was drawing as Veterinary Inspector would remain unchanged except conveyance allowance and further the appellant would be provided with a free unfurnished quarters where the appellant would have to remain, as the service as Hospital Surgeon was a emergent o...
Seth Chemical Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT76(Cal)
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Court: The order passed on 21st January 1992 is recalled and the matter has been heard afresh the following judgment and order is passed.2. The petitioner is the manufacturer of Ultramarine blue. The petitioner's products are being charged to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 32.06. The contention of the petitioner is that the ultramarine blue is manufactured in bulk and then the same is sold in small packets when no manufacturing process takes place.3. It is not necessary to go into this controversy any further in view of the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated 16th December 1991. A copy of the said notification has been handed up in court and the same is kept as part of records of this case. It has been specifically provided in the said notification that the ultramarine blue falling under sub-heading No. 3212.90 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act was being exempted from duty, prov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »