Kolkata Court February 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coates of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Cal)311,[1998]232ITR324(Cal)
Barin Ghosh, J.1. The following question as framed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the subject-matter of this reference :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance of the bad debts for the assessment year 1986-87 in respect of two debts, amounting to Rs. 12,439 and Rs. 1,23,277 ?'The assessment year involved is 1986-87. The concerned previous year ended on October 30, 1985.2. During the concerned previous year, the assessee wrote off, amongst others, a sum of Rs. 12,439 and a sum of Rs. 1,23,277 payable by Sarada Press, Bhagalpur, and Amit Agencies, Allahabad, respectively, treating thesame to be bad debts and claimed deduction under Section 36(l)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The assessee had filed a statement along with the return where it was contended that in spite of the best efforts made by the assessee, the aforementioned payments were not forthcoming. As appears from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Cal)17,[1998]232ITR820(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J. 1. By this reference application, the following questions are referred for our opinion :'1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the transactions relating to the assessee's share loss of Rs. 1,50,520 were proved and whether such finding is based on any relevant material or perverse ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the identity of the person, her creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of cash credit in the name of Smt. Kausalya Devi Gupta have been proved by the assessee is based on any relevant material or perverse ?' 2. The assessee is Korley Trading Co. Ltd. and the assessment year involved is 1984-85. The assessee claimed loss of Rs. 1,50,520 on the purchase and sale of 4,000 shares of D. C. Mills. Both the purchase and sale were made through a broker, Dayco. The broker was summoned to produce its books of account. The broker wanted time and ultimately it failed to submit the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhoolie Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Cal)135,[1998]231ITR65(Cal)
1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions are referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to conclude that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee-company to conceal the interest income from the Revenue ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee did not conceal any income and, therefore, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not proper ?'2. The assessee is a company and maintains its accounts on the mercantile system. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act at nil income. All the assets of the tea estates were sold before the previous years relevant to all assessment years. After completion of the assessment, it came to the notice of the Income-tax Officer that some interest was receivable by ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ravanamma (In Jail) Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1660
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and sentence dated 16th December, 1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, A & N Islands, Port Blair in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1993.2. The convict/appellant arraigned for the charges under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).3. The learned Trial Judge upon the facts finding held the appellant guilty and convicted her under the aforesaid section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.4. The case of the prosecution is summarized as under:One Mohammed Aslam, Sub-Inspector of Police and SHO, Central Crime Station, being PW-3, on 3rd December, 1992 along with Head Constable 67, viz., R.K. Nair, LHC 680, PC 456, PC 863, PC 1383, PC 695 and LPC 995 Magdeleena went on surveillance duty at Haddo wharf...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Agarwalla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(100)ELT333(Cal)
Vinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. The two petitioners claimed to be associated with Terai Tea Company Ltd., Terai Overseas Ltd., and East Indian Produce Limited and several other companies. The petitioners have their residence at No. 5, Lower Loudon Street, Calcutta. They also reside at 2nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri. The registered office of Terai Tea Company Limited is situated at 11, Government place, (East), Calcutta.2. On 15th May, 1996 at about 7.10 A.M., a team of Customs officers conducted search and seizure operations at the residential premises of the petitioners at 2nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri. The search and seizure operations were conducted purportedly on the basis of the search warrant issued in terms of Section 105 of the Customs Act. During the course of search and seizure operations certain documents were seized and taken away by the officers of the team which was responsible for conducting the search and seizure operations.3. The only relief which the petitioners seek in th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanoria Investments (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Cal)160,[1998]232ITR7(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this reference application, the following questions are referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was a financial company within the meaning of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iv) of Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that no disallowance under Section 40A(8) of the said Act could be made in its case ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the entire amount of interest paid by the assessee on money borrowed has to be deducted in arriving at the profit or loss under the head 'Profits and gains of business' and no part should be apportioned and deducted against the income assessable as 'dividend' ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that relief under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, sho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tushar Commercial Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: [1998]230ITR918(Cal)
1. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been taken out on the ground whether the amount of Rs. 2,48,348 is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.2. In the decision, based on the appreciation of the evidence and whether it should be taxed or not, the Tribunal has followed the decision of the apex court in Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT : [1967]63ITR651(SC) and the decision of this court in CIT v. Oberoi Building and Investment P. Ltd. : [1993]203ITR403(Cal) ,3. We issued rule and heard learned counsel on rule.4. The assessee is an investment company. It was holding 33,000 equity shares of Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. The said company issued 13.5 per cent. secured fully convertible debentures on rights basis to its existing shareholders in the ratio of one debenture for one equity share held. The assessee subscribed to 6,000 debentures and transferred the right to subscribe to 27,000 debentures, for which it received Rs. 2,48,348.5. Before the As...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Mazumdar and Company and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1499Cal
Dipak Prakash Kundu, J.1. Whether the management of M/s. N. D. Mazumder & Co. Contractor (Principal Employer : M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Burnpur, Dist : Burdwan) are justified in retrenching the following workmen :(1) Shri Haradhan Paul, (2) Sri Arjun Mishra (3) Sri Rahamatullaha, (4) Sri Thakar Prasad, (5) Sri Ram Kumar, (6) Sri Ainal Haque, (7) Sri Sultan Khan.2A. It appears that both the workmen and the writ petitioner filed respective written statements before the Tribunal. Witnesses were examined before the Tribunal. It appears from paragraph 9 of the award that the following questions were; raised before the Tribunal. (1) The Tribunal to decide first whether these seven concerned workmen belonged to HSCO or to this Contractor Firm. (2) the claim of the Union is a stale one as it was referred after a long lapse of time, and cannot be an Industrial Dispute now. (3) The contesting union did not espouse the case of these 7 workmen nor they are members of the said union. (4) ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Universal Electrics Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [1998]232ITR79(Cal)
1. By this application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was admissible on the machinery used by the assessee for boring operations for extracting water from underground ?'2. At the outset, it is brought to our notice that an identical question was referred to this court and upon consideration of the same by this court the matter was sent back to the Tribunal. As the full facts relevant to question are not available to decide or to answer the question referred, the matter can be sent back to the Tribunal on the same lines as has been sent in the earlier years on identical facts. While sending the matter back, this court has in the case of CIT v. Western Bengal Coal Fields Ltd. : [1994]208ITR981(Cal) observed as under (page 985) :'In this case, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haripada Khatua
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Cal)558,[1998]230ITR560(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that in the original assessment no interest under Section 215(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was levied as the advance tax paid was in excess of the 'assessed tax', the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that interest under Sub-section (3) of Section 215 of the said Act cannot be levied on the reassessment made under Section 147 of the said Act ?'2. The assessee is a partner with a 40 per cent. share in the firm Maha-laxmi Rice Mills, Sabang Road, Bally Chawk, District Midnapore. The business of the firm is rice milling and sale of fertilisers and pesticides. The firm is registered under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.In the year 1989, a search, under Section 132 of the Act, was conducted at the residence of the assessee and in the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »