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.
Roshini Devi Bahuguna Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1992
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT418(HC)
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.1. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice received an application with two annexures from one Smt. Roshini Devi Bahuguna of Balori in the district of Pauri Garhwal in Uttar Pradesh supported by an Affidavit affirmed on 30th August, 1990 before S.D.O./S.D.M., Keerti Nagar. His Lordship treated the said application as a writ petition and the formalities of the court fees, etc. have been waived. His Lordship the Chief Justice assigned the matter to me.2. From the application supported by Affidavit dated 30th August, 1990 it appears that the petitioner Roshini Devi Bahuguna is the wife of Kusalanand Bahuguna (NK/396) who was employed in the State Armed Police, 9th Battalion, Sandhya, Krishnagar in the district of Nadia. She states that her husband seems to have been admitted to Krishnagar Police Hospital for treatment on 10th June, 1979 as appears from Annexure I and he was found absent from the Hospital on 13th June, 1979. A Notice was sent to the husband of the petitioner...
Pratap Kumar Ganguly Vs. Smt. Anindita Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1992
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT74(HC),97CWN53
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. The present Revisionsl application is directed against Order No. 76 dated 6th May, 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 59 of 1988, whereby the learned Additional District Judge rejected an application preferred on behalf of the husband for expunction of Exhibits A and A-1 from the records of the case. The said two exhibits are a prescription and a medical certificate granted by Dr. Ranjit Kumar Panja, a wellknown Dermatologist and relates to the wife/opposite party. The said two documents were tendered to the husband while he was being cross-examined and on the basis of the statement made by him in cross-examination, these were marked as exhibits in the aforesaid manner.2. It is pertinent to note, at this stage that the suit for divorce had en filed by the husband, inter alia, on the ground of cruelty, predominantly mental, by alleging that the wife/opposite party had boils and scars all over th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR476(Cal)
Ajit k. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference made at the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1971-72 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 2,51,350 relating to the railway siding should be included in the computation of capital of the fertilizer project of the assessee for the purpose of arriving at deduction allowable under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the development rebate and depreciation were allowable in respect of Rs. 2,51,350 relating to the aforesaid railway siding ?' 2. The facts which are admitted and/or found by the Tribunal are as under :During the year under consideration, the assessee had two projects in operation, viz., De...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Fire Bricks and Pottery Works (P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR821(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal to this court for its opinion for the assessment year 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee-company for deduction of Rs. 3,16,061 on account of demand made by the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals for failure of the assessee to carry out the terms of, the contract for supply of refractories in working out the business income should be allowed ?'2. The facts leading to the reference are as under :The assessee, a limited company, was awarded a contract by the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals for supply of refractories to Chittaranjan Locomotive Works but, due to increase in the prices of raw materials and the higher price sought by the assessee-company not being given, the assessee-...
Empire Plantations (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR923],[1992]197ITR698(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 facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision of Rs. 5,52,000 made in the accounts for the year ended March 31, 1976, and described as 'provision for bonus to staff and workmen' is an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The facts in brief are that the assessee, a limited company, debited a sum of Rs. 5,52,000 in the profit & loss account for the year ended March 31, 1976, under the head 'Provision for bonus to staff and workmen'. The plea of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer was that though no bonus was payable by it under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the company decided to pay some amount to its staff and workmen on the ground of commercial expediency. Since the assessee maintains accounts on the mercantile basis, the provision of Rs. 5,52,000 was made in the accounts. The c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Thirani and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: [1996]218ITR149(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the following questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the first proviso to Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1st April, 1988, would be applicable to the assessment year 1984-85 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the additions of Rs. 10,78,497 and Rs. 4,514 (sales tax Rs. 8,90,852, provision for turnover and purchase tax Rs. 1,28,000, E. S. I. provision Rs. 4,535, provident fund contribution Rs. 32,992, Baranagar Municipality tax Rs. 32,118 and Rs. 4,514 for loss...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hayward Waldia Refinery Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: [1994]209ITR159(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1977-78, 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 is justified in law in holding that the legal charges of Rs. 12,000 paid by the assessee for obtaining the advice of the solicitors regarding dilution of its shareholding in pursuance of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, is a revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the remuneration of Rs. 24,000 paid to one of its directors, Sri V.S.K. Nadar, by the assessee, does not attract the provisions of Section 80VV read with Section 37(1) of the Income-taxAct, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the e...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Carbide Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: [1994]206ITR402(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were illegal ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to the question are as under :The assessee, Union Carbide Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.C.C.') is a corporation existing under the law of the State of New York in the U. S. A. and is a company within the meaning of Section 2(17)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has been assessed in the status of a non-resident company. In the past, jurisdiction over the Union Carbide Corporation lay with the first Income-tax Officer, Non-resident Refund Circle/Bombay, who made assessments on it for and up to the assessment year 1965-66. The jurisdiction was then tra...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Sunita Mundra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: [1994]206ITR470(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. lit this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law :'1. Whether the Tribunal is right, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in arriving at the finding that the partner who had certainly objected to the apportionment of her income and tax thereon had a right of appeal under Section 246(c) read with Section 247 because it cannot be that there can be no appeal against the allocation altogether? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in interpreting that, though the firm's appeal was dismissed earlier as incompetent, yet the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in entertaining the appeal filed by one of the partners of the firm, Messrs. A.K. Mundra and Co. ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that originally a firm, Messrs. Arun Kumar Mundra and Co., had declared its status as such as it had not asked for regist...
J.K. Trust Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR524(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this consolidated reference, the Tribunal has referred to us the following question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust was liable (sic) to pay wealth-tax because of the provisions of Section 21A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee, a charitable trust, was denied the exemption under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act by the Wealth-tax Officer who held that the assessee made prohibited investment in shares of different concerns which had made substantial contributionto the assessee-trust thereby attracting the provision of Clause (e) read with Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Wealth-tax Officer held that the prohibited investment in the shares of such concerns attracting Section 13(3) did not, ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »