Kolkata Court September 1993 Judgments

Union Carbide Corpn. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)50ITD437(Kol.)

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 24-2-1986. The assessment year involved is 1982-83 for which the. accounting year ended on 25-12-1981. The assessee M/s. Union Carbide Corporation (U.C.C. in short) is a company incorporated in the U.S.A. It is assessed in the status of a non-resident company in India. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the only question whether the amount of Rs. 43,57,233 received by the assessee from M/s. Union Carbide India Ltd. (U.C.I.L. for short) under a "Technical Service Agreement" dated 13-11-1973 was taxable in its hands as "royalty" under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. In the. course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer took the view that the payments made under the technical service agreement by U.C.I.L. was assessable in the hands of the assessee as "royalty" within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. According to him, the fact ...

Hamilton and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)48ITD534(Kol.)

1. WTA Nos. 450 to 452 (Cal.) of 1991 relate to the assessmentyears 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. These appeals are by the assessee. WTA Nos. 413 to 415 (Cal.) of 1991 are appeals by the department for the same years. WTA No. 123 (Cal.) of 1992 is an appeal by the department for the assessment year 1987-88. Since all the appeals were heard together, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a. private limited company. It Is the owner of a building at Mo. 1A Connaught Place, New Delhi, The Sand upon which the building stands is held by the assessee on a perpetual lease.3. In the present appeals we are concerned with the valuation of the aforesaid property. The property is a commercial property. It. was let out since 1944. The tenants are stated to use the property for their offices. The assessee became liable to wealth-lax by virtue of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 from the assessment year 1984-85. In the wealth-tax returns the assessee disclosed the value of the ...

Surendra Kumar Banthia Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1994(70)ELT217(Cal)

Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioner has imported umbrella panels. A contractwas entered into with the foreign seller on 2nd March, 1992 for this purpose.The goods arrived in Calcutta on 28th December, 1992 and 11th January, 1993.There were 12 separate consignments of the goods. Ten were released to thepetitioner. As far as the remaining two were concerned the respondentauthorities insisted that the goods would only be released provided that thepetitioner furnished a PD Bond backed by a bank guarantee to the extent of30% of the assessable value of the two consignments. The petitioner protestedagainst the refusal of the Customs authorities to release the two remainingconsignments of goods but ultimately on 22nd February, 1993 and 26thFebruary, 1993 furnished two bank guarantees in support of the bonds executed by the petitioner in favour of the Customs Authorities as disputed bythem. Upon the execution of the bond and the furnishing of the bank guaranteethe goods were released to the petitione...

Kabushiki Kaiha Toshiba (Toshiba Corporation) Vs. Toshbia Appliances C ...

Court: Kolkata

Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is an appeal from order of the Deputy Registrar rectifying only two of the several class 7 entries standing in the name of the appellant, viz. electric washing machines and spin dryers, in respect of the trade mark 'TOSHIBA'.2. The appellant on its own showing is registered in many more classes than class only, but the registration in class 7 only is in issue in this appeal and I deal only with the same. The appellant has some eight entries registered in that class, including current generators, electric induction motors and compressors as well as the two rectified entries.3. The registration in class 7 has stood in favour of the appellant from as early as 1971. The application for rectification was made by the respondent as late as in June 1989. The rectification has been sought both under Section 46(1)(a) and under Section 46(1)(b) of our 1958 Act and the relevant portions are as follows :'46. Removal from register and imposition of limitations on ground of n...

Sri Probhat Kumar Das and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)1CALLT235(HC),98CWN102

Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. The Appeal has been heard with the consent of the learned Advocates for the contending parties. It is directed against the order dated 16.7.93 passed by Tarun Chatterjee, J. in writ application in the matter of case No. BIR/3/92 under Sections 57 & 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act issued by the Revenue Officer, and in the matter of Probhat Kumar Das v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (not numbered as yet).2. The short point involved in this Appeal is whether in a proceeding before a Revenue Officer under Sections 14T(3) and 14S of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter shortened into Act) for re-determination of the question of eciling limit of a Raiyat after his death under Section 14M it is open to his heirs and legal representatives to contend that they have inherited the land belonging to the holder, and that the surplus land should be determined on the footing that each of them is an independent Raiyat in his or her own right, and that the re...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri Nand Kishore Verma

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)1CALLT286(HC),1994(48)ECC91

Samaresh Banerjea, J.1. The instant appeal before us raises a short but very important question of law namely, whether a citizen can invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in apprehension that he may be obtained under a preventive detention Act and can obtain an injunction restraining the detaining authority from passing such an order of detention.2. The respondent/writ petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia on the allegation that he reasonably believed that the appropriate authorities were going to issue an order of detention under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) although he has been released on bail by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta after he was arrested on the allegation of violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In the said writ application the writ petitioner prayed int...

Chandrima Guha Vs. Sumit Guha

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: I(1994)DMC586

S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. Let this matter be treated as on day's list upon intimation to the learned Advocates for the parties.2. The present revisional application arises out of an order, passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 217 of 1995, for divorce, mainly on the ground, as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The connected suit was filed in the Trial Court before the expiry of the requisite period of one year from the date of solemnisation of the marriage, on the ground of exceptional hardship on the part of the petitioner. The suit is at the instance of the husband against the wife and the same is preceded by filing of an application under Section 14(1) of the Act for leave to present the petition for divorce before time. The respondent/wife in the connected suit is the Revisional petitioner before this Court.3. In course of hearing of the Revisional application, Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate...

Debasish Ghosh Vs. Smt. Soma Ghosh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: II(1994)DMC281

Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. The present Civil Revisional Application raises a short but important question relating to right of a party to amend the written statement in a matrimonial suit, instituted under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage. From the materials on records, it appears that after all other stages, excepting arguments, had been completed, an application was made, on behalf of the wife/petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of her written statement by incorporating allegation of impotency of the plaintiff-husband. From the copies of evidence, adduced on behalf of the contesting parties, it appears further that, in course of cross-examination, suggestion had been given to the husband regarding such impotence of him and the husband expressed his readiness to undergo medical examination for the same. The original written statement, upon a proper reading, can be said to contain some hint about such imp...

Smt. Chandrima Guha Vs. Sumit Guha

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)1CALLT416(HC)

Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. Let this matter be treated as on day's list upon intimation to the learned advocates for the parties.2. The present Revisional application arises out of an order, passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 217 of 1993, for divorce, mainly on the ground, as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The connected suit was filed in the trial Court before the expiry of the requisite period of one year from the date of solemnisation of the marriage, on the ground of exceptional hardship on the part of the petitioner. The suit is at the instance of the husband against the wife and the same is proceeded by filing of an application under Section 14(1) of the Act for leave to present the petition for divorce before time. The respondent/wife in the connected suit is the Revisional petitioner before this Court.3. In course of hearing of the Revisional application, Mr. Ghosh, learned ...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Nand Kishore Verma

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1994CriLJ1934

Samaresh Benerjee, J. 1. The instant appeal before us raises a short but very important question of law namely, whether a citizen can invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in apprehension that he may he detained under a Preventive Detention Act and can obtain an injunction restraining the detaining authority from passing such an order of detention.2. The respondent writ petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia on the allegation that he reasonably believed that the appropriate authorities were going to issue an order of detention under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter-referred to as COFEPOSA) although he has been released on bail by the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta after he was arrested on i the allegation of violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In the said writ application the writ - petitioner prayed i...