Kolkata Court September 1998 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.
National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR577(Cal)
1. Several questions have come up in these references, some at the instance of the assessee and some at the instance of the Department, in respect of three assessment years being 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. So far as the questions referred at the instance of the assessee are concerned, the assessee has explained that the assessee has already got the benefit in regard to gratuity in other concerned years and as such it would be difficult for the assessee to press for obtaining the tax benefit once again by pressing for a favourable answer to its question in that regard. The assessee has also conceded that in so far as the proper method of deduction of a debenture premium payable at the end period of the debenture is concerned, it is a pro rata method, whereby the extra premium is to be spread over all the years which are occupied between the date of issue and the date of ultimate redemption.3. On the basis of this concession the assessee does not and cannot ask for a favourable answ...
Associated Pigments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR589(Cal)
1. Although this is a matter at the final stage of answer to the questions, and although we have heard learned advocates appearing both for the assessee and for the Department on more days than one, and although authorities were cited on both sides, yet, in our opinion, the matter is of such utter simplicity that it can be disposed of in a very brief compass.2. The questions relate to admissibility of deductions of two several sums of Rs. 1,23,695 and Rs. 2,06,589 paid by the assessee on account of purchase tax during the assessment year in question but those sums being relatable to an earlier accounting and assessment year.3. The claim was made on the basis of actual payment because of the changes introduced in and by Section 43B of the Income-tax Act. That section need not be set out in full as that is easily available. The important point is Explanation 1 contained in the further proviso which states that, for the removal of doubts, it is clarified, that in computing the income of t...
National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN443(Cal)
ORDER1. Several questions have come up in these references, some at the instance of the assessee and some at the instance of the department, in respect of three assessment years, being 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. So far as the questions referred at the instance of the assessee are concerned, the assessee has explained that the assessee has already got the benefit in regard to gratuity in other concerned years and as such, it would be difficult for the assessee to press for obtaining the tax benefit once again by pressing for a favourable answer to its question in that regard. The assessee has also conceded that insofar as the proper method of deduction of a debenture premium payable at the end period of the debenture is concerned, it is a pro rata method, whereby the extra premium is to be spread over all the years which are occupied between the date of issue and the date of ultimate redemption.3. On the basis of this concession, the assessee does not and cannot ask for a favourabl...
Krishnendu Midya and ors. Vs. the Board of the Trustees for the Port o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT171(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. In this application the petitioners have, tutor alia prayed for a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to act in terms of the panel as contained in annexure 'B' to the writ application. It is not disputed that the panel was prepared on 9.11.93. The petitioners further in paragraph 9 of the writ application have stated that the said panel has been prepared by the Port Authorities on 9th November, 1993 and the life span of the panel is one year. The petitioners further stated that the lift span of the said panel will expire on 8th November, 1994.2. Although by an order dated 8th November, 1994, an interim order has been passed restraining the respondents from giving any appointment without leave of this court, keeping in view the admitted position that the life of the panel has since expired, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to Die petitioners.3 In Madan Lal and Others v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others reported in...
Gokul Chandra Panja Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT241(HC)
1. The Court : The petitioner claims to be entitled to pension under the Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, now renamed as Swatantrata Salnik Samman Scheme. According to the petitioner a proclamation order was issed against him and to avoid arrest he was compelled to go underground.2. He applied on 13th August, 1981 for such pension on the ground that he had remained underground from October, 1942 to July, 1944. Rablndra Nath Girl, a recognised freedom fighter, certified his application to the effect that the petitioner was bonafide freedom fighter and a proclaimed offender but he went underground for continuance of his services to the country under R.N. Girl's guidance.3. The District Magistrate submitted a Certificate to the State Government to the following effect :'This is to certify on the basis of reports received form the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station that no relevant records relating to issue of warrants, proclamations and prosecutions during the period 1930-...
M/S. Hindusthan General Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Mohini M. Moorj ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT475(HC)
P.K. Samanta, J.1. The plaintiff/respondent filed ejectment suit No. 765 of 1985 for eviction of the defendant/appellant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement The suit flat being No. 115 on the 11th floor of Ambassador Apartment at 6IA, Park Street at Calcutta with the benefits of user of a servants's room and a parking space for one car was let out to the defendant/appellant at a monthly rental of Rs.1,450/-only payable according to engllsh calender month. According to the plaintiff, she and her husband are residing at 41, Sallmar Apartment, 3 CJ, Desuja Road, Bangalore and she is not in possession of any reasonable suitable accommodation. Her husband was a Central Government employee and held the post of Chairman, Meat and Fishing Department of Central Food Techonology Research institution, Government of india, Mysore. Plaintiff's husband retired on 1st January, 1982. After retirement the plaintiffs husband was permitted to occupy government quarters till 31s...
Sanjib Kumar Sanyal Vs. Shipping Corporation of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT10(HC)
D.B. Dutta, J.1. Heard the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties and considered the averments made in the application, I am satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out in the application for condonation of delay in preferring this revisional application.Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the application for condonation of delay is allowed.Re: An application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on 17.9.92.The revisional application is taken up for hearing.2. In this revisional application, the plaintiff of a suit for recovery of certain dues from his employer, has come forward to challenge an order whereby the trial court allowed the defendant/Opposite party to withdraw his admission on the question of entitlement of the petitioner to gratuity as well as medical reimbursement partially to the extent of Rs. 18,750/-Towards gratuity as against Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 450/- towards medical re-embracement as against Rs. 500/-. The defendant/Opp...
State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Shri R.N. Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT113(HC),[1999(82)FLR202],(1999)IILLJ33Cal
ORDERV.K. Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant State Bank of India and other appellants against the judgment dated 17.11.95 by a learned single Judge of this court whereby the disciplinary proceedings including the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the order dated 21.1.92 dismissing the respondent R.N. Banerjee from the service of the appellant bank have all been quashed and set aside with directions to the appellants to treat the respondent/writ-petitioner as having been retired from service of the bank on 28.2.91 and to give him all consequential retirement benefits as are admissible under law. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the writ-petitioner (Respondent in this appeal) was working in the State Bank of India where he had joined as a Probationary Officer on 1st March, 1961. In October, 1986 he was posted as the Chief Manager of the bank at its Antwerp (Belgium) branch. He served in that branch uptill Apr...
Krishna Salt Industries Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(104)ELT614(Cal)
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs :'(a) Issue a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel and/or quash the orders contained in Annexure 'K' being Memo dated 12th September, 1989 and 2nd November, 1989 issued by the respondent No. 7 and 4 respectively and further commanding the respondents their respective men, agent and subordinates from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned Memo dated 12th September and 2nd November, 1989 issued by the respondent Nos. 7 and 4 respectively being Annexure 'K' to this petition and further commanding the respondents to allot iodized salt in piecemeal loading in favour of the petitioners as sponsored by the State Authorities.(b) Issue a direction upon the Respondent No. 7 to consider and dispose of the application sanctioning permission to set up an iodized plant at Purulia.(c) Issue a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari commandin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›