Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)167CTR(Cal)576,[2001]249ITR418(Cal)
S.N. Bhattacharjee J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Indo-German agreement for double taxation, prior to its amendment in 1984, the sums received by the assessee for design and technical services for the construction work, i.e., the second bridge over the river Hooghly is chargeable to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the Indo-German agreement for double taxation, the transfer of the drawings, designs and technical services under the collaboration agreement constituted an out and out transfer of such rights and as such the sums received therefor could be treated as royalty for the purpose of the Indo-German Double Taxation Agreement and liable to Indian Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1981)21CTR(Cal)278,[1981]129ITR426(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This refernce under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, arises out of an application made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-XII, Calcutta. The assessment relates to the year 1971-72, and.the accounting year ended on 30th June, 1970. The assessee-firm came into existence by a partnership deed dated 20th June, 1954, and at that time it had four limited companies as its partners, viz., (1) Philips Electrical India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Philips', (2) Associated Electrical Industries (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' AEI'), (3) General Electric Company of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' GEC ') and (4) Siemens Bros. & Co. The firm was registered for and from the assessment year 1955-56. By an agreement dated May 5, 1959, it was decided that the share of M/s. Siemens Bros. & Co. should be transferred to the AEI and the other partners had no objection to such transfer. Therefore, with effect from May 5, 1959, only three pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT283(HC)
K.M. Yusuf, J.1. This is a hotly contested revisional application. The plaintiff-petitioner has moved this Court against the order, dated 14th March, 1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, in Misc. Appeal No. 630 of 1989 affirming the order, dated 21st December, 1988 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Alipore, in T.S. No. 292 of 1988. Both the Courts below concurred in their decisions by not allowing the interim order of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case briefly are as under :The petitioner instituted a suit, inter alia, for declaration that the defendant-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 13 have no right to function as the Executive Committee of the Hindusthan Lever Sramik Karmachary Congress and the Executive Committee of the petitioner-union representing the majority workers is legally constituted and elected Executive Committee having the authority to represent union and also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT107(HC),2000(1)CHN245
G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Both the above noted Death Reference and the criminal appeal are being dealt with and disposed of by this Judgment as they arise out of the same Judgment of the 3rd court of Additional Sessions Judge, Allpore. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 26-8-92 acquitted the accused Sanda Akhtar and the accused Hossaln Chowdhury but convicted the accused Naslm @ Naso and the accused Lokman Shah under section 302/149 IPC and further convicted the accused Naso under sections 148, 201/149 IPC. Subsequently after giving a hearing on the question of sentence the trial court by Its order dated 31-8-92 sentenced both the accused Naso @ Naslm and Lokman Shah to death for their conviction under section 302/149 IPC for the murder of V.K. Mehta and also sentenced the accused Nase to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2.000/- i.d. to R.I. for 6 months for the offence of rioting punishable under section 148 IPC and also sentenced him to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal135,66CWN697
S.K. Sen, J.1. This Full Bench Reference arises from a revisional application by the petitioner Arun Kumar Roy against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kurseong, dated 12th September, 1960, calling for charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. On 16th April, 1960, about 8-30 P. M. the petitioner when driving a car is alleged to have knocked down a woman named Rani Tamangni who died on the spot. Sub-Inspector S.K. Roy registered a case, but after investigation he submitted a final report on 6th September, 1960, put up on 8th September 1960, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, taking the view that it was an accident, the death of the woman being due to her sudden rush across the road, so that the petitioner was not to blame. The Magistrate called for the case diary, and after perusing the same he took the view that prima facie the petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligence, and so he called for a charge-sheet under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1964Cal247,68CWN302
A.N. Ray, J. 1. This is a suit for a declaration that the notice dated March 1, 1963, is null and void, and that the resolutions mentioned in the purported notice dated March 1, 1963, are illegal, unlawful and ultra vires the articles of the defendant company. A further declaration is asked for that the general meeting of the company held on March 30, 1063 and the resolutions purported to be passed thereat are illegal and ultra vires and of no effect, and not binding on the plaintiff and other share-holders. An injunction is asked for to restrain the defendants from holding meeting and a further injunction to restrain the defendants from implementing or giving effect to the resolution which may be passed at the meeting. An injunction is also asked for to restrain in defendants from implementing or giving effect to the resolutions which were purported to be passed at the meeting. 2. The plaintiff is a share-holder of the defendant Swadeshi Cloth Dealers 'Ltd., and others hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT78(HC)
The Court1. These are two applications under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by one of the contracting parties to a contract agreement The petitioner has asked for the following reliefs from the court :'(a) Injunction restraining the respondent company. Its agents servants and assigns from Invoking the said Bank Guarantee No. G16/67 dated 17th December 1997 for Rs. 26,00,000/-Issued by the Bank of India in favour of Indiana Conveyors Pvt. Ltd., at the Instance of your petitioner;(b) Injunction restraining the respondent company, its servants, agents and assigns from receiving any payment from the Bank of India against the said Bank Guarantee No. G 16/67 dated 17th December, 1997; for Rs. 26,00,000/-;(c) Injunction restraining the respondent company, its agents, servantsand assigns to receive any payment from Reliance Petroleum Ltd.,and/or its project partners FMC--a U.S. based Multi-nationalwithout leaving a sum of Rs. 79,61,162.52 p. on account of yourpet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1994]205ITR126(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta J.1. In his reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1981-82, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the conditions laid down in Sub-clause (ix) of Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 40A(8) were satisfied ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in presuming that the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was erroneous in accepting that the amount of Rs. 58,96,594 was exempt under Sub-clause (ix) of Clause (b) of the Explanation, to Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the initial depreciation under Section 32(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act is required to be deducted i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal649,66CWN395,[1962(4)FLR89],(1962)IILLJ62Cal
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. An objection to the maintainability of the present application has been raised as a preliminary objection.2. The petitioner, tile West Bengal Press Workers and Employees' Union, claims to be a trade union of workmen employed in different printing presses in West Bengal, including a press known as the Art Union Printing Works Private Ltd., (respondent No. 1).3. The working conditions, scales of pay and dearness allowance of workmen in printing presses became the subject-matter of certain awards, more or less on industrywise basis, during the last several years. One such award between 169 printing presses in Calcutta and Howrah (including the respondent No. 1 press) and their workmen was published in the Calcutta Gazette, dated May 11, 1948. The other such award between 90 printing presses (including the respondent No. 1 press) and their workmen was published in the Calcutta Gazette, dated March 1, 1951.4. The dispute, out of which this Rule arises, is the third ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1955Cal573,59CWN1073
K.C. Das Gupta J. 1. A suit instituted by Bholanath Sen and Tulsimanjari Dassi in forma pauperis having been dismissed with costs, they were, under the decree, made liable to Government to pay the sum of Rs. 2484-12-0 on account of costs of court-fees and the sum of Rs. 1115-9-6 to the defendant Rajlakshmi Dassi. Rajlakshmi Dassi applied for execution of this amount together with costs of execution on 13-11-1943 in Title Execution Case No. 41 of 1943.The Government of West Bengal had applied for execution against Bholanath and Tulsimanjari in the Execution Case No. 25 of 1942 and got four Government Promissory Notes attached. After some vicissitudes, with which we are no longer concerned, the position in the beginning of January 1952 was that in the execution case commenced by the present petitioner the legal representatives of Bholanath and Tulsimanjari, who had died on 20-9-1947 and 8-11-1948 respectively had been substituted in their place.No such substitution had, however, been mad...
Tag this Judgment!