Kolkata Court November 1993 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Champa Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: [1995]212ITR303(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 for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the agreement dated June 15, 1971, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 72,000 did not form part of the assessee's income ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment years involved are 1982-83 and 1983-84. One Smt. Champabati Devi Chamaria was the owner of four immovable properties including a three-storeyed building situated at 25A, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. The said lady sold her undivided one per cent. share of the immovable properties each to ten of her close relatives through registered deeds. Subsequently, Smt. Champabati Devi and the other co-owners of this property formed a joint stock company in the name of Messrs. Champa Properties (P.) Ltd., namely, the present assessee. Smt...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dunlop India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR987(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1980-81, the previous year ending December 31, 1979. The assessee is a limited company deriving income from business in the manufacture of tyres, tubes, etc.2. The assessee exported goods to several parties in Turkey between November, 1976, and September, 1977, amounting to Rs. 2,72, 19,587. The parties in Turkey were to pay for the goods in U.S. dollars and deposited an equivalent amount in lira in the Central Bank of Turkey. The Central Bank of Turkey, however, did not transfer the amount deposited by the purchasers in Turkey to India. In view of the extremely critical foreign exchange reserve position, the Government of Turkey imposed a ban on all remittances out of Turkey. As a result, the amount deposited in the Central Bank of Turkey remained there. The normal period of 90 days within which the sale proceeds should have been realised expired without any receipt b...
Tag this Judgment!Motiar Rahaman Vs. Sabina Khatun and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: 98CWN763,II(1994)DMC57
A.K. Dutta, J.1. By the instant Revisional Application under Section 401, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as husband) has prayed the Court for setting aside/quashing the orders dated 4.9.92 and 15.1.93 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court at Alipore, in M. Case No. 81 of 1989 before him on the grounds set forth therein.The opposite-party No. 1 wife (hereinafter referred to as wife) had filed an application before the learned Magistrate for maintenance against the husband under Section 125 of the Code in 1989, registered as M. Case No. 81 of 1989, contending, inter-alia, that the parties were married according to Muslim Rights and Customs on 13.4.1985, and the husband had been refusing and neglecting to maintain her, she being unable to maintain herself. The learned Magistrate, upon hearing the parties, had allowed the wife's application for maintenance by order d...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Kumar Saraf Vs. Sri Jagannath Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Cal205
ORDER1. With the consent of Shri Sudipta Moitra the Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner the instant revisional application had been heard on a preliminary objection taken by the Ld. Advocate Mr. Gopal Chandra Mukherjee appearing for the O.P. against the impugned order that no revisional application lies under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that as such only appeal lies. The revisional application has not been heard on merits. So the main point for consideration is whether the impugned order is an appealable order or it is revisable under Section 115 C.P.C.2. The instant revisional application hasbeen preferred against Order No. 1 dated 21-12-1992 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Howrah rejecting the prayer for ad interim order of injunction in Misc. Appeal No. 287/ 92 preferred by the plaintiff petitioner against the Order No. 45, dated 17-12-1992 passed by the Ld. Munsif, 4th Court, Howrah in T.S. 62/ 90 rejecting his prayer for ad interim order of injunction. I...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. JaIn and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT251(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is a writ application made by the petitioners who carry on business in Calcutta.2. They complain against a provisional assessment of duty made in respect of a vessel, M.V. Rainbow Reefer, which was imported into Indian Waters for the purpose of demolition.3. The Bill of Entry shows that the petitioner declared the weight of the ship (called light displacement tonnage, L.D.T.) at 6178.00 M.Ts. The duty calculated at 5% ad valorem was shown in the Bill of Entry by the petitioners as Rs. 17,19,085/-.4. The Customs Authorities altered the tonnage to 6441.00 M.T. Mr. R.C. Nag, appearing for the petitioners said that this alteration was done without any basis whatsoever. He showed the reverse of the Bill of Entry where the respondents' endorsements showed that the L.D.T. given by the petitioners was both as shown on the survey report of 1-10-1993 and as shown in the stability book.5. Mr. Nag next contended that the Bill of Entry was also wrongfully altered by th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Arati Pal with Sri Nirmal Kumar Tekriwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1993
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT466(HC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. These two matters are taken up for disposal together as they involve common questions of law and fact which are more or less similar.2. In both these two matters, notices isssued by the Howrah Municipal Corporation under Section 177(1) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, have been challenged as being ultra vires, on the ground that it vests certain powers in the Commissioner without laying down any guidelines for exercise of such powers, giving scope for arbitrary exercise of such powers in identical cases.3. Appearing in support of the writ application filed by Smt. Arati Pal, Mr. Mukul Prokash Banerjee, learned advocate, firstly submitted that in the absence of any guidelines, the powers vested in the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 177 of the aforesaid Act gave him the absolute and unfettered discretion to take recourse to any of the measures provided for therein. Mr. Banerjee pointed out that under the aforesaid provisions, the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›