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.
Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR900(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1971-72 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no invalidity in the imposition of penalty under Section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the demand raised under Section 210 was not illegal?'2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to this question are that on April 3, 1970, the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1969-70 disclosing an income of Rs. 4,14,313 and also paid the tax under Section 140A of the Act. Subsequent to this, on August 3, 1970, the Income-tax Officer ('the ITO', in short) passed an order under Section 210 on August 3, 1970, requiring the assessee to pay as advance tax a sum of Rs. 1,85,044 relating to the assessment year 1971-72 (previous year 1970-71). This demand of advance tax under Section ...
Mrs. Indu Sood Vs. Vishandas Hirwani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1992
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT259(HC)
S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. In this Revisional application, on the Subjectmatter of challenge is an order, being order No. 77 dated 19th of March, 1992, passed by the learned 2nd Assistant District Judge, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 135 of 1988. The tenant is the Revisional petitioner before us and it has been contended that the impugned order suffered from a jurisdictional error inasmuch as the amount of alleged security deposit of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) was not directed to be adjusted against the arrear amount of rent, as found by the learned trial Judge.2. We have heard Mr. Biswas in support of the application and Mr. Bakshi in opposition thereto. Mr. Biswas has relied upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1981(2) CLJ at page 254 in support of his contention that the amount of security deposit ought to be adjusted against the amount of arrear rent. In the case cited, the specified reason for direction for adjustment of such security deposit was...
Ram Narayan Misra Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Cal57,96CWN1100
ORDER1. The writ petitioner claims in this petition to have quashed an order dated 21-1-78/2-1-78 whereby the Additional District Magistrate sought to impose a levy of Rs. 60816 upon the petitioner for making of bricks. The imposition was made for alleged unauthorised use by the petitioner of minor minerals and as such the Rules in that regard made in West Bengal were referred to and specific reference was made to Rule 24 thereof.2. The impugned imposition is preceded by a notice dated 14th November, 1977 whereby the writ petitioner was asked to attend the brick field for the purpose of assessment. It is quite clear that the authorities did not give the writ petitioner any opportunity to make out a case that the Rules were inapplicable to the writ petitioner or that for some other reasons no imposition of royalty was to be made upon the writ petitioner at all.3. In case the writ petitioner's stand was that such royalty was payable, then and in that event, a visit to the brick field for...
Sk. Md. MohasIn HossaIn Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1992
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT293(HC)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. In this application the writ petitioner challenges the order dated 15th October, 1977 declaring certain lands of the petitioner and his family to be vested under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. As the writ petitioner had filed no return in relation to the land in Form 7A, a sup moto case had been started. It appears from a perusal of the order that the case of the writ petitioner that am oral gift of lands had been made to the five sons: of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground of non registration of the writings accepting such gifts. Though the respondents have not appeared before me and there is no Affidavit-in-Opposition on record yet it appears from the order itself that the case of the writ petitioner was that the oral gifts had been made in or about the year 1967, that is, some two years prior to the date 7th August, 1969 whereafter under Section 14P of the said Act transfers would not be effective in the matter of bringing the land area below...
State Bank of India Vs. Kalyan Kumar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1992
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT463(HC)
1. This Revisional application is directed against Order No. 20 dated 13th of June, 1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Act 39 Case No., 12 of 1989. It is a somewhat uncommon case, where one Ranjit Kumar Mukherjee, since deceased, appointed the State Bank of India as executor of his will, although he had legal heirs and successors. When the probate of the Will was applied for, the application which was signed by the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, had been rejected by the impugned order by the learned District Judge upon a finding that the authorisation disclosed did not entitle the Deputy General Manager to sign and verify such application. The legal heirs and successors of the deceased have been impleaded as parties to the Revisional application and all of them have been served with the notice of the application which is indicated by the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no appearance to contest the Re...
Indian Jute and Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1992
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC144,1992(62)ELT290(Cal)
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal), Calcutta refusing the petitioner's prayer to stay the demand and directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of penalty within ten days of the receipt of the order. The petitioner's case is that the Collector failed to take into account the hardship that might be caused to the petitioner if the tax had to be deposited while the appeal was pending. The petitioner has a strong prima facie case and the prayer of the petitioner should have been allowed. The petitioner in the application for stay before the Collector of Central Excise stated inter alia -(i) 'We are a Sick Industry as declared under order dated 23-11-1987 in the Case No. 112/87 of the BIFR, New Delhi, copy enclosed.(ii) The grounds in appeal are sound and substantially correct. We hope that the appeal will succeed.(iii) The Industry is passing through severe hardship. The dues cannot be passed on the cu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›