Kolkata Court May 1994 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR249(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for its new freight container unit without setting off past losses of the said unit 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the effect that relief under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be determined with reference to the working of the new unit only without reference to the profits of other units not eligible for deduction under this section ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84 for which the relevant accounting year is the financial year 1982-83.3. The facts as narrated by the Tribunal in the stateme...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rexor India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR532(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has stated the following questions of law to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that if the assessee had been allowed to vary the meaning of the expression 'previous' year in respect of the business or profession and such previous year was of thirteen months or more, the depreciation allowance calculated as per Rule 5(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, had to be increased by multiplying it by a fraction of which the numerator would be the number of complete months in such previous year and the denominator would be twelve 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The facts found by the Tribunal are as under : The assessee is Rexor India Ltd. and the assessment year involved is 1984-85. The assessee h...
Shri Goutam Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT130(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. All the three contending parties are represented by their respective Learned Counsels, who have been heard at length.2. By the instant Revisional Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the Petitioner has prayed for 'setting aside' (presumably 'for quashing') all the relevant proceedings, being G. R. Case No. 1340 of 1992, arising out of Barasat P.S., Case No. 546 dated 12,8.92, pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Barasat mainly on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. is the subject-matter of a civil suit, which are quite unfounded, and that the dispute is very much civil in nature, amongst other grounds.3. The Petitioner contends that he had purchased the disputed land from one Susanta Sen alias Khoka Sen, son of Satyendra Nath Sen of Bongaon under a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 29th June, 1990. Immediately after purchasing the said property he has filed a sui...
Shri Shyamalendu Chatterjee Vs. Hooghly Dock and Port Engineers Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT245(HC)
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has: inter alia prayed for orders confirming him as Head Clerk/Chief Clerk/Section-in-Charge and fitment in the grade, pay and scale and other benefits attached to the post which was enjoyed by the Ex-Head Clerk of WPO Department with effect from 15th January, 1982. The petitioner joined as temporary clerk in Accounts Department of M/s. Hooghly Docking & Engineering Co. Ltd., Salkia, Howrah and ultimately he was confirmed as a Clerk in or around 1965. The said M/s. Hooghly Docking & Engineering Co. Ltd. became an undertaking of the Central Government and on 9.7.1984 a new Government Company named Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. was formed. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Government Company, the respondent No. 1 is a State and/or Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution being fully controlled and financed by the Central Government. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 6th June,...
Zafar Ahmed and ors. Vs. Tanwir Iqbal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT156(HC)
Krishna Chandra Agrawal, C.J.1. These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge setting aside and dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner, Tanwir Rasul.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as under :- Rasul, predecessor-in interest of the respondents purchased the property in question from Khadija Khatun by a registered sale deed dated 1.9.1969. On 21.4.1979, the respondent received a notice issued by the Assistant Custodian of the Enemy Property intimating that Khadija Khatun was a Pakistani national and that the disputed property was an enemy property. It was further mentioned in the notice that a property in dispute was an enemy property. As such, it had vested in the Government of India under Notification dated 10.9.65 issued under Rule 133 (V) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The respondent filed a reply denying that ascertaining Khadija Khatun was not a Pakistani national. Accordingly, the property, in question was an enemy property, as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›