Kolkata Court February 1993 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.
Indian Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: (1993)45ITD352(Kol.)
1. These cross appeals relate to the assessment year 1986-87 for which the accounting year ended on 30-6-1985.2. In the appeal by the assessee, the first question is whether the CIT (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the amount of Rs. 8,35,000 as long term capital gain received by the assessee from the Insurance Company. The second issue is whether the departmental authorities are justified in treating the amount of Rs. 1,65,000 under Section 41(2) of the IT Act.3. During the year of account, the vessel "M.V. Chopra" belonging to the assessee sank in the sea near Goa. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the Insurance Company for the loss of the ship. The Income-tax Officer treated the amount as the business receipt of the assessee and taxed the same accordingly. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT (Appeals) took the view that the amount received from the Insurance Company for the loss of the ship cannot be treated as the business income of t...
Ancon Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Amitava Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT479(HC),1993(1)CHN298,[1996]85CompCas522(Cal),1994CriLJ351,98CWN383
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. A question of interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been raised in this revisional application Petitioner No. 2 as director of petitioner No. 1-company issued the following four cheques towards the discharge of their liabilities against the opposite party complainant, viz.,(1) Cheque No. 850816, dated May 15, 1992, for Rs. 14,356.(2) Cheque No. 850817, dated June 10, 1992, for Rs. 2,746.(3) Cheque No. 850818, dated June 10, 1992, for Rs. 8,000.(4) Cheque No. 850819, dated July 10, 1992, for Rs. 11,740.2. The total amount under those four cheques was Rs. 36,842. Those were, however, all post-dated cheques, The first three cheques were presented to the. bank on June 13, 1992, but they were returned unpaid by the drawee bank with the remark 'funds insufficient'. The cheques were again presented to the bank on July 10, 1992, but, this time also they were dishonoured by the bank. On July 13, 1992, the complainant payee r...
Durga Pada Mukherjee and Another Vs. Ambujakshya Ganguli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Cal125
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-11-1979 passed by Shri M. Roy. Learned Subordinate Judge, Purulia in Title Appeal No. 28 of 1975 decreeing the suit after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1976 passed by Shri B. Basu. learned Munsif, Purulia dismissing the Title Suit No. 177 of 1973 of his Court.2. Shri Sitanath Banerjee and Shri Trilochan Banerjee are two brothers had their bastuand other lands on the contiguous south of Manbazar -- Dhanara Road, Purulia comprised in C.S. plot Nos. 2530, 2531, 2532, 2526, 2527 and 2525. One Brajalal Banerjee was the owner of C.S. plot No. 2529 lying to the contiguous south of C.S. plot No. 2530. After the death of Brajalal his three sons sold plot No. 2529 to Trilochan and Karali, son of Sitanath upon a registered sale deed dated 20-12-1941. In Falgoon 1358 B.S., there was amicable partition between Trilochan and Karali and a memo of partition was drawn up on 24-2-1952 corresponding to 11...
Ajoy Kumar Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT411(HC),97CWN766
ORDERSusanta Chatterji, J.1. By order dated 17.8.1992 this Court disposed of a writ application after considering the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities. It appears from the said order that Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for CMC authorities, has brought it to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner had made a representation for withdrawal of the earlier application. If the said representation is not pressed then the earlier 'Building Plan' cannot be considered. It was fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that this Court may grant liberty to the petitioner regarding withdrawal of such representation. Recording said submission, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner for not pressing the representation for withdrawal. This Court further made it clear that the pending application for grant of sanction of the Building plan be considered by...
Bibhuti Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT153(HC),98CWN115
G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. In a sessions trial in respect of a charge Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Public Prosecutor after getting almost all the prosecution witnesses examined barring certain charge-sheet witnesses who were not examined on the ground that they were gained over, prayed in the court below for examination of two more witnesses who were not named in the charge-sheet nor were examined by the investigating officer Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation of the case. It may be mentioned here that the prosecution evidence was not yet closed when the learned Public Prosecutor made that prayer for examination of the said two witnesses. It also appears that the names of those two witnesses transpired from the evidence of P.W. 2 who is the father of the deceased. The learned trial Judge on consideration of that prayer permitted the prosecution to examine those two witnesses.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner assails...
Company of Management for Baranagar Jute Factory and ors. Vs. Atis Dip ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2165
ORDERAmal Kanti Bhattacharji, J.1. This revisional application has been filed by two accused petitioners against whom a criminal proceeding under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been pending. The aforesaid proceeding was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the opposite party, namely the Manager (Recovery) of the State Bank of India, 24 Park Street. Calcutta alleging that the petitioners had issued a cheque in favour of the Bank in discharge of certain debts and that the said cheque bounced. It was accordingly alleged that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was committed and that the accused was liable for punishment under the said section, read with Section 141 of the Act. The relevant facts which are necessary for consideration of this revisional application may be briefly stated as follows : --2. The Baranagar Jute Factor, company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, was a borrower of the O.P. Bank...
Sasanka Sekhar Basu Vs. Miss Dipika Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Cal203,(1993)1CALLT226(HC),1993(2)CHN179,97CWN578,II(1993)DMC74
ORDER1. In the instant revisional application an important question of law has arisen for consideration of this Court, namely whether a suit, in which reliefs other than reliefs contemplated under the various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act have been prayed for is to be filed before the Court of the learned District Judge under the provisions of S. 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act or before the Court of a learned Munsif.2. The present petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 93 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Munsif at Chandan-nagore against the opposite party inter alia on the pleadings that the opposite party is not legally married wife of the plaintiff and the opposite party did not acquire the status of wife of the plaintiff. The sum and substance of the case made out by the plaintiff in his plaint is that the plaintiff who is a Hindu while reading M.A. in the University of Calcutta became acquainted with the defendants some time in the year 1967-68 and such a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Cal)375,[1994]206ITR215(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 three questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenses relating to food, tiffin and salary paid to guest house staff and depreciation on assets used in the assessee's guest houses ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the contribution to the Molasses Storage and Maintenance Reserve created under the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyatran (Sansodhan) Adesh, 1974, as a revenue expenditure ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to deduction under Section 80G in respect of the donation to Vishwa Mangal Trust ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessment y...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sun Jute Press (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Cal)236,[1993]203ITR350(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, 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, for the purpose of levy of wealth-tax on the assessee-company, the property in question has to be excluded under Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983 ? 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the asset in question was a business asset is unreasonable or perverse ?' Briefly stated, the facts raising the question are that the assessee is a private limited company. It filed nil returns under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, brought to charge the value of certain leasehold properties on the ground that the leasehold property excluded from taxable wealth under Sub-section (3) of Section 40 of the Fina...
Sk. Niamat Ali Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)19,(1993)1CALLT497(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. By the instant revisional application under Section 401, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner-accused has prayed the Court for quashing the relevant proceedings, being Sessions Trial Case No. XVIII(4) of 1991 arising out of Jagatballavpur P.S. Case No. 4 of 1990 dated 28.1.90 and the order dated 24.7.91 passed fey the Assistant Sessions Judge, First Court, Howrah therein framing charges against him (petitioner-accused) under Section 363/366, Indian Penal Code, on the grounds set forth therein.2. The relevant case was registered by the police upon receipt of a purported written complaint from the informant Jamunabala. Samanta on 28.1.90 on the allegation that her minor daughter Jayanti Samanta has been kidnapped by the petitioner-accused from her lawful guardianship and had married her. The police upon investigation submitted chargesheet in the matter and the case had eventually been committed to the Court of Sessions. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »