Kolkata Court September 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.
Partha Talukdar Vs. Mina Hardinge and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Cal118
ORDER1. This is a partition suit relating to the land and building at 5, Sunny Park andthe moveable goods therein.2. The property originally belonged to one Pramatha Nath Talukdar who died in England in July 1977. This partition suit has been filed by Pramatha's son Partha who was born to him in 1947 by his first wife Romole whom he married in 1939 and divorced in or about 1952. Romole remarried another in 1958.3. In my opinion, this is a worthless suit and should never have been filed, but 1 must state certain facts before I explain why.4. There is a full sister of Partha, being the defendant No. 5 herein, Mandira, who was born in 1941. The second wife of pramatha was one Laila Jhawar. At the time of her marriage in or about 1954, Laila had a daughter named Nilofer by her earlier husband; Pramatha had a son Sanjay by Laila in or about 1956. Sanjay is the 4th defendant herein. Laila was divorced in 1963.5. Pramatha's third wife was Meena, the first defendant herein, whom he married on ...
Sushil Kumar Dalmia and anr. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT320(HC),[1994]79CompCas568(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. This case has a chequered background indeed. The writ petition was moved ex parte without notice to the respondents on September 11, 1992. Mr. Aninyda Mitra, learned counsel, appearing for writ petitioner No. 1, Sushil Kumar Dalmia, for self and on behalf of other subscribers to the issue of convertible debentures by Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd. and petitioner No. 2, Mathew Easow, a financial consultant, pressed the writ application in seeking leave to sue in a representative capacity and prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent . No. 1, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, having its office at Bikaner House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, to quash, recall and cancel the order dated September 2, and September 9, 1992, issued on Case No. 11A, 64 of 1992 and to refrain from entertaining the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 and to refrain from proceeding with Enquiry Case No. 133 of 1992 in any manner whatsoever, and for injunc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anand and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR418(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 Tribunal has referred for our opinion the following question of law relating to the assessment year 1979-80 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right to give a finding on the validity and the authenticity of the signature of an Issuing Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in M. A. No. 51/(Cal) of 1989 and in I. T. A. No. 1912/(Cal) of 1985 for the assessment year 1979-80 or whether there is sufficient material on record to come to the conclusion that the purported signature on the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, bears the signature of the Issuing Officer ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts relating to the question are that, pursuant to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act read with Section 147(b), a reassessment was completed under Section 143(3). In the first appeal, t...
Reckitt and Colman (i) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)46ITD273(Kol.)
Wherever an order of assessment is carried in appeal, the same merges with the appellate order only in respect of matters that have been considered and decided in appeal and as far as the matters which are not taken in appeal are concerned, there is no question of merger and it would be open for the Commissioner to initiate proceedings under section 263 in respect of matters untouched by the appellate authority.When the Commissioner(Appeals) passed the order only the matters that were taken before him in appeal got merged with the order of assessment and it is only on those matters the Commissioner was prevented from taking any action for revision under section 263.1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act is valid both on the question of jurisdiction and on merits.2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1983-84. The assessment had been completed on 20-1-1987 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: [1995]214ITR448(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :The common questions for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 are as follows : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the preparation of food in hotel was manufacture or production of articles of the nature as envisaged in Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing investment allowance to hotel although the Tribunal itself held that the hotel was not primarily an industrial undertaking ?' 2. The additional question for the assessment year 1978-79 is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified ...
New India Rubber Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: 1994(72)ELT840(Cal)
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner praying for -(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to act according to law and to forbear from giving effect or further to the orders of adjudication being annexure 'C' to 'H' hereof and from levying any fine or penalty or from holding that the consignments of Synthetic Shoe Uppers imported or to be imported are not authorised under the licence in question and to refund the redemption fine already paid with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the date of payment till the date of refund;(b) A writ in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to produce all relevant records before the Hon'ble Court in connection with the impugned orders of adjudication being annexure 'C' to 'H' so that the same may be quashed and set aside and conscionable justice may be rendered;(c) A writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondents ...
Indian Tube Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR54(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The assessment year in question is 1973-74. The petitioner had paid advance tax. An order was passed under Section 141A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to as 'the Act'), by which an amount of Rs. 23,20,294 was found to be refundable to the petitioner being the difference between the advance tax paid and the amount of tax to which the petitioner was assessed.2. On September 4, 1975, the petitioner filed an application under Section 154/155 of the Act for modification of the assessment order for the year 1973-74 on the ground that the provisions for deduction of gratuity has been wrongly disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner's application was partially accepted by the Income-tax Officer and the assessment was, accordingly, modified on November 24, 1976. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the petitioner's appeal by an order dated January 28, 1977. On January 31, 19...
Sk. AmiruddIn Ali Alias Sk. AmiruddIn Mondal Vs. Smt. Kali Bala Bhunia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT121(HC),97CWN495`
Jyotirindra Nath Hore, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Midnapore dated 23.8.68 in Title Appeal No, 674/67 affirming those of the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Midnapore in Title Suit No. 162/67.2. The plaintiff/respondent Smt. Kalibala Bhunia instituted the said Title Suit No. 162/62 against the defendant/appellant for a declaration that the Kobala executed by her in favour of the defendant on 28.1.64 is a void document without consideration and not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in respect of the suit land. Admittedly, the disputed property belonged to the husband of the plaintiff who died in 1367 B. S. leaving the plaintiff and a daughter named Gita Rani as his heirs. The plaintiff gave her daughter Gita Rani in marriage with one Haripada Sur. To meet the expenses of such marriage the plaintiff on behalf of h...
In Re: Nisit Mohan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT338(HC),97CWN636
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. This Revisional Application is directed against order No. 194 dated 31st. July, 1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Hooghly in L.A. suit No. 5 of 1976. The plaintiff in the said suit is the petitioner before this Court.2. An application for letters of administration of the estate of Satadal Basani Devi, who died, leaving a will, became a contested cause and was numbered as a suit as above. In the said suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for exemption from substituting the heirs of deceased defendant No. 22, Jogeswar alias Sarbeswar Mukherjee, who died during the pendency of the suit, inter alia, on the ground that in spite of notice or summons, Jogeswar did not file any written statement or objection to the application for letters of administration and that the date of death of said Jogeswar, till the date of the said application, was...
Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR892(Cal)
RUMA PAL J. - In this application, the writ petitioner has challenged a notice passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to as 'the Act'). By that notice, the income-tax authorities have sought to rectify an order of assessment dated August 21, 1979, in so far as it relates to the payment of interest under section 214 of the Act.In my view, the impugned notice cannot be sustained on the simple ground that the income-tax authorities would have no reason to be aggrieved by the order of assessment dated August 21, 1979. The petitioner was initially assessed in respect of the year 1972-73 on March 10, 1975. An amount of Rs. 12,26,924 was found to be refundable to the petitioner being the difference between the advance tax paid and the tax payable on actual assessment. Interest was also allowed under section 214 of the Act for the period April 1, 1972, to the date of the assessment, namely, March 10, 1975. This initial order of assessment was rectified under section 154...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »