Kolkata Court March 1993 Judgments
Smt. Mohini Devi Bajoria Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD43(Kol.)
1. The assessee has filed all the four appeals challenging the common order dated 25-9-1991 of the Income-tax Commissioner (ITC) passed under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86. For the sake of convenience all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of through this single order.2. The facts are that the assessments of the assessee for all the above assessment years were completed on 7-10-1982, 25-4-1984, 24-4-1985 and 15-10-1985 respectively. Thereafter the assessee filed returns under the Amnesty Scheme announced by the CBDT and disclosed the values of gold ornaments and jewellery. Pursuant to this Amnesty returns the Assessing Officer (A.O.) after regularising the returns by issue of notices under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act completed the assessments for all the years on 30-3-1990. Thereafter the ITC formed an opinion that the value of the shares held by the assessee in various companies were not correctly valued by th...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Cement Limited Vs. the Official Liquidator and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Cal90,98CWN288
ORDERPrabir Kumar Majumdar, J. 1. This appeal is from the Judgment and Order dated December 2, 1992, passed by a learned Judge of this Court taking company matters.2. Shalimar Rope Works Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) had a guest house at Maharani Bag, New Delhi. The landlord of the said guest house is the respondent No. 2 in this appeal, viz., Arvinder Singh Sabharwal. The company was the tenant under the said landlord in respect of the said guest house at Maharani Bag, New Delhi. The company was ordered to be wound-up by an order of this Court dated June 10, 1991.3. The appellant before us, Shree Cement Ltd.. claims to be a sub-tenant in respect of the said guest house at Maharani Bag, New Delhi. Upon liquidation of the company, the Official Liquidator took possession of the assets of the company on November 18, 1991. The Official Liquidator also took possession of the said guest house and put the same under lock and key. The landlord, the respondent No. 2 in this a...
Tag this Judgment!Koppind Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Cal)60,[1994]207ITR228(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that business loss of Rs. 5,41,220 claimed in the return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be allowed to be carried forward as the said return could not be treated as a return filed under Section 139(2) and within the time specified in Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts briefly stated are that the assessee-company, in the period relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, carried on business as dealers in engineering goods and of consultancy. The previous year of the assessee ended on December 31, 1977. The assessee was to submit its return under Section 139(1) of the Act by June 30, 1978. The assessee did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR589(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1980-81, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the repair expenses incurred by the assessee-company for the portion of the premises occupied by an employee should not be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of disallowance as perquisite under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The facts relating to the question are that the assessee did not take into account the perquisite value in respect of the proportionate municipal taxes and repairing charges incurred by the assessee for the portion of the premises occupied by its employee, Shri H.P. Singhee. The Income-tax Officer disallowed Rs. 20,000 under Section 40A(5) being the estimated value of perquisite in respect of proportionate municipal taxes and repairingcharges incur...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Dutta (Cookme) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR23(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1983-84, the Tribunal has referred the following questions :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the loss arising out of premature encashment of cash certificates with U. B. I. to reduce the quantum of overdraft from them in the usual course of business was not revenue loss but capital loss ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the return for the assessment year 1983-84 having been filed on July 2, 1985, the amended provision of Section 80 effective from April 1, 1985, was applicable and hence the loss determined was not to be carried forward ?'2. The statement of facts as made out by the Tribunal shows that the assessee-company filed its return voluntarily for the assessment year 1983-84 on July 2, 1985. It claimed a loss of Rs. 11,21,210. According to the assessee-company, no notice was issued either under Section 139(2) or Section 148 o...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC95,1993(67)ELT48(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. The short question which calls for determination in this appeal is whether Ultramarine blue manufactured and marketed by the appellant is liable to Duty under Tariff Item No. 141(5) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The description of the goods in Tariff Item No. 141(5) of the Act is 'Paints and Enamels not otherwise specified'.2. In the Writ application filed by the appellant a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the said product manufactured and marketed by the appellant is liable to Excise Duty. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion the learned Single Judge relied on a decision rendered by Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. (as he then was) in Nilsin Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Orissa and Others reported in : 1985(22)ELT739(Cal) . In that case it was held that 'Ultramarine blue' is understood by the people conversant with the product as pigment i.e. as a colorant.3. In the case of Nilsin Company (supra) a ...
Tag this Judgment!Extrusion Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT52(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, the following question of law has been referred tothis Court:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of theTribunal upholding the charges levelled against the appellant and the imposition of the redemption fine or penalty is perverse and/or was arrived at byexcluding relevant material and/or by taking into consideration the irrelevantmaterial and/or was arrived at on the basis of irrelevant or extraneous consideration.'2. Shortly stated, the facts are as under :-3. The applicant is a manufacturer of plastic materials for packagingpurposes. For its said business, the applicant entered into a contract with aWest German firm for importing plastic extruder having screw diameter of 6'equivalent to 152.4 mm. The payment for the said machine was to be made ondeferred terms and required the approval of the Reserve Bank of India. As perthe Import & Export Policy of 1980-81, extrude...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Ch. Bhadra and anr. Vs. Sm. Uma Bhadra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT165(HC)
R. Bhattacharyya, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioners Under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 for quashing the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 323 of 1991 pending disposal before the learned S.D. J.M., Shiliguri, Dist. Darjeeling.2. The Uncontroverted facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party were married according to Hindu rites. A child was born of the loins of the petitioner. The marital life of the parties was literally insalubrious which could not be repaired by either party, though promised.3. The petitioner No. 1, as agitated in the revisional application, took his transfer from Katihar to Tindharia, Darjeeling.4. Curiously, he again took a transfer to Katihar and advised his wife to stay at Shiliguri for promotion of education of the child. But, to utter dismay, the wife was booked with an information about the ex pane decree passed against her for divorce by the court of Katihar. She was taken aback by the conduct of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Anjan Banerjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR130(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The writ petitioner, Anjan Banerjee, is employed as Assistant Resident Commissioner-cum-Assistant Director, Tourism, Government of Sikkim. The petitioner was appointed in 1974 under the State Trading Corporation of Sikkim having its office at 4C, Poonam, 5/2, Russel Street, Calcutta-700 017.2. The case of the petitioner is that, although the petitioner was appointed in the year 1974, his salary is being deducted at source under the provisions of the Sikkim State Income-tax Manual, 1948, since 1982. The petitioner lodged repeated protests against this deduction from his salary because he was posted at Calcutta. The authorities in Sikkim being respondents Nos. 8 to 11 did not pay any heed to the protest lodged by the petitioner.3. The petitioner's case now before this court is :'The petitioner states and submits that, in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore and in view of the fact that the petitioner is a resident of India within the meaning of...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Kuljit Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1993
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT238(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 7th July, 1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on an application filed by the respondent-Writ Petitioner for refund of the cash security along with interest.2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the respondent-Writ Petitioner is the sole proprietor of a transport agency namely M/s. Shammy Road Carriers. In or about January 1987, 9 trucks along with goods loaded therein which were proceeding from Delhi to Calcutta were detained by the Central Excise Officers at Bolpur. 4 trucks were brought to Calcutta Customs House. The allegation was that the said trucks were involved in smuggling activities. By order dated 14th April, 1987 the Collector of Customs directed release of the said 4 trucks provisionally on depositing of Rs. 20,000/- for each truck and on execution of bonds for the entire value of the said trucks. Between April 1987 and August 1987 the respondent-Writ Petitioner deposited an aggregate sum of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »