Kolkata Court January 2000 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.
Griffen Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Cal)98,[2000]244ITR68(Cal)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenses in the nature of publicity medical literatures and journals distributed by the company to the members of medical profession are to be regarded as expenses on 'advertisement, publicity and sales promotion' within the meaning of Section 37(3A) and (3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a manufacturer of medicines. The relevant assessment year is )985-86. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer, inter alia, found the assessee claimed Rs. 2,45,780 as expenses on medical literature and journals and also distributed free samples of medicines to doctors and physicians to the tune of Rs. 10,88,920. The Assessing Officer has treated these expenses for advertisement and sales promotion and disallowed 20 per ce...
Commissioner of Income Tax Bengal-i, Calcutta Vs. M/S. M.N. Dastur and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT394(HC)
Y.R. Meena. J.1. On applications under section 256(1) of the Act 1961 following questions are referred for our opinion.2. In R.A. No.259(Cal) of 1990 following questions are referred :--1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the sections 37(3A), 37(3B) of the IT Act, 1961 read with Explanation (c) thereof, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that since it is not the case of the CIT that the expenditure incurred on the motor cars on running and maintenance is on hire charges for engaging cars plied for hire the view taken by the Assessing Officer was not incorrect?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the assessee at the first assessment claimed relief under section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, only on the net income from the foreign exchange, the Tribunal was Justified in law in allowing the assessee to agitate against the issue whether the relief under section 80-O of t...
Nirmal Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. the Bengal Engineering College and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal124
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made basically for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the student/petitioner herein to allow him to sit in an examination following the Regulations of the Examination as below :'6(a). If a full time student does not pass Section A, B and C of his/her Master of Engineering Examination within the three semesters, he/she may continue afterwards to clear the backlog within a period of six semesters from the date of admission.6(b). If a candidate registered as private candidate does not complete his/her Section A, B and C of Master of Engineering Examination within five semester, he/she may continue afterwards to clear backlog within a period of eight semesters from the date of first registration.6(c). A candidate registered as regular/ private candidate will not be admitted to the next Section Examination if he/she has a backlog of more than two subjects (theoretical/sessional) in the previous Section Examination(s). However, the candidate...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.N. Dastur and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Cal)417
ORDERY.R. Meena, J.On applications under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 following questions are referred for our opinion.In R.A. No. 259/Cal/1990 following questions are referred1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the sections 37(3A), 37(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Expln. (c) thereof, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that since it is not the case of the Commissioner that the expenditure incurred on the motor cars on running and maintenance is on hire charges for engaging cars plied for hire the view taken by the assessing officer was not incorrect ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the assessee at the first assessment claimed relief under section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only on the net income from the foreign exchange, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the assessee to agitate against the issue whether the reli...
Narendra Lohia Vs. R.K. Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC460
ORDER1. Upon reading a petition of Narendra Lohia and the affidavit of verification thereof dated 29th November, 1999 and the exhibits or annexures to the said petition and upon hearing Mr. Bhasker Sen, Advocate for the petitioner.2. It is ordered that a Rule do issue calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the opposit parties to rescind, recall, withdraw and/or to forbear from giving effect to the impugned Summons as referred to in prayer (a) of the petition or why a Writ in the nature of Prohibition should not be issued commanding the opposite parties to refrain from issuing Summons Under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 as complained of in prayer (c) of the petition or why a Writ in the nature of Certioari should not be issued in terms if prayer (b) of the petition cancelling, setting aside or quashing the impugned orders and they are further commanded at the bearing of this application to produce in Cou...
Debashis Ganguly Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal212
ORDERBarin Ghosh, J. 1. The scheme of the 1988 Act, as appears to me, authorises the Transport Authority to formulate a route from one termini to another provided one of the terminis falls within its jurisdiction. Once such route is formulated, such Transport Authority can grant permit to ply stage carnage on the said formulated route. If, however, the route in question falls in the jurisdiction of the another authority, counter-signature of such another Authority is required. In order to obtain such counter-signature, steps as are required to be taken for obtaining a route permit are also required to be taken. In the event, no such counter-signature is obtained, the route permit would not be valid within the territorial jurisdiction of the Transport Authority whose counter-signature was required but has not been obtained. The same principle is also applicable in relation to inter-State routes. If a State has formulated the route from one stage to another, that State may grant a route ...
Sankar Basu Vs. Sri Prabir Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT43(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the order dated May 20, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Second Court at Alipore, in C.R. No. 135 of 1998 thereby affirming the order dated March 2, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court at Allpore in T.S. No. 57 of 1995 rejecting the application for return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate forum.2. There is no dispute that the opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the present petitioner on the allegation that he was a tenant in respect of the suit properly at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,000/- payable according to English Calendar month.3. While valuing the aforesaid suit, the opposite party had stated that the same was equivalent to 12 months rent for ejectment and a further sum of Rs. 19,000/- for damages for wrongful occupation of t...
Sikkim Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. R.S. Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: [2000]38CLA145(Cal),[2000]102CompCas387(Cal)
Sengupta, J.1. In terms of the earlier order of this court the applications being G. A. Nos. 3000 of 1999, 3430 of 1999 and 4131 of 1999 in connection with Civil Suit No. 408 of 1999 and the applications being G. A. Nos. 3466 of 1999 and 3592 of 1999 in connection with Civil Suit No. 452 of 1999 are taken up for hearing inasmuch as the points involved in all the aforesaid applications are identically common and decision in any one of the aforesaid applications will some way or other have final effect on other applications.2. Civil Suit being No. 408 of 1999 has been filed in the name of Sikkim Bank Limited and the other four persons, viz., S. N. Kundu, Dr. A. Sahoo, Timir Baran Ghosal and R. N. Bhattacharjee who are claiming to be the nominee directors appointed by the Reserve Bank of India of plaintiff No. 1 against other two defendants, viz., R. S. Chowdhury and K. L. Roy who are other directors challenging the legality and validity of the resolutions said to have been passed at the ...
Bansari Mohan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Totini Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT326(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. The facts of the case have been set out correctly and In detail In the judgment dated 30th July, 1999 of the learned single Judge. We do not intend to burden this judgment with a repetition of those facts. Suffice it to say that the judgment was in a partition suit between three groups of heirs and that the question to be determined Is the shares of the parties in premises No.26, Badur Bagan Lane, Calcutta (referred to as the premises).2. The appellants represent one group; the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 represent the second group and the respondent No.5 represents the third group, each group being the heirs of three brothers namely, Upendra, Dhlrendra and Bhupendra respectively. The father of Upendra, Dhlrendra and Bhupendra, one Kunja Behart owned 3/4th share in the premises. The other 1/4th share was owned by Kunja Behari's nephew, Harendra Nath.3. The respondents Nos.l to 4 claim 1/4th share in the premises by virtue of a sale of Harendra Nath's Interest to their father, D...
West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Bengal Traders
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT89(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. A very short question is involved for determination in this appeal against the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court passed on 1st April, 1993 in Award Case No.471 of 1999 whereby he refused to set aside the award and dismissed the application of the appellant for this purpose.2. The Arbitrator had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1 and against the appellant After incorporating certain recitals in the opening parts of the Award the Arbitrator finally held thus :'I, am the Umpire having carefully examined the documents, exhibits and annexures etc. as also the depositions of the Claimant and the respondent and having heard the submissions and arguments of both sides, both in respect of fact and law I do hereby make my award as below. (1) The West Bengal State Electricity Board, the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty thousand only) to the Claimant within 3(three) months from the date in full and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »