Kolkata Court January 1993 Judgments

M.A. Rahman and anr. Vs. the Collector, Land Acquisition and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present miscellaneous appeal is against the judgment dated 28th January, 1992 passed by the learned District Judge acting as the Land Acquisition Judge in disposing Misc. Judl. Case No. 6 of 1983 as to reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the Collector following an objection to the Award by him in Land Acquisition case No. LA/BD/82.2. This case has a chequered background indeed. At the outset an application for time was filed for the alleged inconvenience of Mr. A.S. Ray, appearing for the appellant/claimant. Mr. Hem Raj Bahadur obtained adjournment earlier to get himself ready for necessary hearing. He has not pressed the application for time seriously. Instead he is found ready to argue the case effectively and competently.3. Upon perusal of the material on record it transpires that the learned Land Acquisition Judge disposed of the reference in terms of the order of remand made by the Division Bench of this Court as per the order...

East India Hotels Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1993]202ITR929(Cal)

Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. This application under Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arises from the judgment of this court dated August 9, 1991, on a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Act.2. The question referred to this court by the Income-tax Tribunal was whether the assessee who had been carrying on hotel business was entitled to extra depreciation allowance and also extra shift depreciation allowances. This court answered the said question in the negative by saying that the assessee is entitled only to extra depreciation allowance following the earlier decision of this court in S.P. Jaiswal Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1991]188ITR603(Cal) . There, a Division Bench of this court had held that extra shift allowance for triple shift working is not available to a hotel as the expression 'extra shift' is relatable only to a factory or concern which may or may not work day-shift as well as night-shift. The concept of shift working of the machinery and plant in a hotel has no ...

K.T.S. (Singapore) Plc. Ltd. Vs. Associated Forest Products (Pvt.) Ltd ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1993)1CALLT382(HC),[1996]85CompCas190(Cal),1996(55)ECC12

Ruma Pal, J.1. This is an application for winding up Associated Forest Product (P.) Ltd. (referred to as 'the company') on the ground that the company is commercially insolvent.2. The undisputed facts are : the petitioning creditor (which is a company carrying on business in Singapore) entered into an agreement with the company on August 12, 1986, by which the petitioning creditor agreed to supply and the company agreed to purchase sawn timber balau referred to as ('the goods') from Malaysia at the agreed price of U.S. dollars 94,875.47. On October 2, 1986, the goods arrived at Calcutta from Malaysia by ship and were taken delivery of by the company. Three bills were raised in respect of the goods by the petitioning creditor on the company. At the request of the company, the petitioning creditor agreed to give a discount on the price for the goods so that the total amount payable by the company to the petitioning creditor was U.S. dollars 87,503.37. The company, however, did not make a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.P. Dalmia

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1996]218ITR709(Cal)

Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference, the Tribunal has referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law :'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, Pile Foundation Construction Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., is assessable under the head 'Salary' as there existed the relationship of an employee and employer ?'2. The facts shortly stated are that the assessee had shown the director's remuneration under the head 'Salary' and claimed standard deduction under Section 16(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the assessee as a managing director of Pile Foundation Construction Co. (I.) Pvt. Ltd., which paid the remuneration, enjoyed wide power and control over the affairs of the company and, therefore, his position did not stand at par with that of the other e...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Lila Ghosh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1994]205ITR9(Cal)

Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In these two references--one at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessee--the following questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1980-81 :Income-tax Reference No. 32 of 1991 (at the instance of the Revenue): '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs which became payable by the Government of West Bengal to the assessee by virtue of the order dated February 28, 1980, of the Calcutta High Court was a capital asset and profit on transfer of this asset was taxable under the head 'Capital gains' ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that, in determining the capital gains on the transaction between the assessee and the Government of West Bengal resulting from the order dated February 28, 1980, of the Calcutta High Court, the cost of the capital asset wou...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Technico Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Cal)25,[1994]206ITR36(Cal)

ORDER--Applicability of doctrine.Held :The doctrine of merger can only operate on matters which are the subject-matter of decision by the first appellate authority. It cannot have any application to matters which are not being taken on appeal either by the assessee or which had not been considered by the AAC. In the instant case, the assessee did not prefer an appeal on the question on which the CIT exercised his jurisdiction and the appellate authority did not also give any finding thereon. The assessee got the benefit of the assessment order and it is the admitted position that the appeal was preferred by the assessee on other grounds and the question involved in the exercise of revisional power under s. 263 of the CIT was not the subject-matter of appeal, and, as such, it cannot be said that the order of the Income Tax Authority merged with the order of the appellate authority on the question whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A(1) and additional dep...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Lila Ghosh. (and Vice Versa).

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Cal)219,[1993]205ITR9(Cal),[1993]71TAXMAN72(Cal)

AJIT K. SENGUPTA J. - In these two references - one at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessee - the following questions have been referred to this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1980-81 :Income-tax Reference No. 32 of 1991 (at the instance of the Revenue) :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs which became payable by the Government of West Bengal to the assessee by virtue of the order dated February 28, 1980, of the Calcutta High Court was a capital asset and profit on transfer of this asset was taxable under the head Capital gains ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that, in determining the capital gains on the transaction between the assessee and the Government of West Bengal resulting from the order dated February 28, 1980, of the Calcutta High Court, the cost of the capital asset would be t...

Binode Behari Dey Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1993)1CALLT265(HC)

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. The petitioner, Binode Behari Dey has filed this revisional application for quashing the charge framed against him by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 5022 of 1981 under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is the contention of the petitioner that there are no materials justifying the framing of charge against him. The gist of the allegations in the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant, Smt. Surabala Dutta is that she fell in great financial hardship after her husband's death and at that time one Banbehari Dey, the accused named, in the F.I.R., who is one of her relations dishonestly induced her to part with her gold ornaments so that the same might be used in business and in return he promised to give her Rs. 300/- per month. It is also the allegation that some ornaments of the complainant were kept by Banbehari Dey in locker of a Bank opened in the joint names of the complainant and Banbehari, but b...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kedarnath Poddar and Co.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1993]201ITR639(Cal)

Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1971-72 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the assessee-firm was at no time the legal owner of the immovable property at Behala and so could not transfer the same and/or whether such finding of the Tribunal was otherwise arrived at by ignoring relevant materials and/or relying on irrelevant materials? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, then whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the admitted fact that the property at Behala had been purchased out of the funds of the assessee-firm and was all along disclosed as an asset of the assessee-firm, the interest and rights of the. assessee-firm in the said property represented a capital asset within the meaning Section of 2(...

Fateh Alam Khan Vs. Tea Trading Corpn. of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1993)2CALLT284(HC),97CWN1065,(1994)ILLJ1175Cal,1993(2)SLR51

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. 1. The dispute involved in this writ petition concerns the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he was initially appointed to the post of Darwan in the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (CIWTC) which is a Government of India undertaking. On or about the September 5, 1972 and in the Declaration Form regarding nomination for the purpose of Provident Fund account, his age was recorded as 32 years as on September 7, 1973 arid the said recorded date of birth was duly attested by the Labour Officer of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. His service was subsequently transferred with effect from April 1, 1974 to the respondent No. 1, Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. which is a Government of India Enterprise with the existing terms and conditions of service. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Jamadar with effect from March 1, 1979. According to his contention, for the first time he came to know...