Court : Kolkata
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1979CENCUS359D,1984(15)ELT337(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The appellants companies arc manufacturers of the jute products like jute twine, yarn, sacking, carpet backing etc. The appellants have further claimed that portions of jute twine and jute yarn manufactured by them are used for producing finished products, namely, jute textiles. In other words, portions of jute twine and jute yarn are their intermediate products for captive consumption.2. Jute Textile Industries is one of the industries specified in the First Schedule of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. But the specifications relating to jute industry in the First Schedule of the said Act have been from time to time amended/substituted. The Act LXX1 of 1956 substituted the First Schedule of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 with effect from 1st of March, 1957. The Heading No. 23 of the First Schedule is as follows :-'Textiles (including those dyed, printed or otherwise processed);(1) * * * *(2) made wholly or in part ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1984]7ITD67(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri Anand Prakash, Accountant Member - These appeal are taken together as one of the grounds of appeal is common in all of them and, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed of by this common order.2. The controversy which is common in respect of all the years is with regard to the valuation of the property situated at B-34, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Up to the assessment year 1968-69, the said property was under the personal occupation of the assessee. Thereafter, one floor of it has been let out. The contention of the assessee before us is that the said property should be valued both by land and building method, but by applying the yield method. In support of it, he has relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court the case of Sudesh Chandra Talwar dated 5-3-1981 in Matter Nos. 670, 671, 657, 656, 655 and 672 of 1977 (a copy of the unreported judgement has been placed on record).In the above case also the facts were similar and the decision of this Lord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas227(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Debendra Nath Bhattacharya, since deceased, and Deb Kanta Roy were the promoters of Gluco Series P. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'the company') which was incorporated on November 11, 1959. At the incorporation of the company, Debendra subscribed for 1,000 shares and Deb Kanta subscribed for 200 shares of Rs. 100 each.2. The main object of the company is to manufacture and sell glucose of various types.3. The articles of association of the company provide, inter alia, as follows:'Article 7....the company shall be entitled to treat the registered holder of any share as the absolute owner thereof and accordingly shall not, except as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction or as by statute required, be bound to recognise any benami, equitable or other claim to/or interest in such share on the part of any other person.Article 29.--Number of directors shall not be less than two and more than seven until otherwise determined by general meeting.Article 30.--The fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas920(Cal)
Asha Mukal Pal, J.1. This is an application by one Gopal Das Gujarati for an order of injunction restraining the defendants, namely, the Titagarh Paper Mills Co Ltd., Kanak Ghosh, working for gain at 95, Park Street, Calcutta, and others including Sri Betrabet, Deputy General Manager, Development and Planning, and N. I. Gangaram, Deputy General Manager, working for gain at the Industrial Development Bank of India along with others from proceeding with or acting in terms of the notice dated August 24, 1983, calling the annual general meeting on September 30, 1983, and also from holding the annnal general meeting on the said date. Appointment of administrator and/or special officer has also been sought for over the Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd., defendant No. 1.2. The petitioner's case is that at all material times, he was and still is a shareholder of the Titagarh Paper Mills and he is holding 32,179 fully paid-up ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each in the capital of the Titagarh Paper Mills...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1985)13ITD173(Kol.)
1. These appeals are by the assessee in which common points are raised and the facts are identical. Accordingly, the counsels of both the sides have addressed us in one set. We, accordingly, consolidate the appeals for disposal by this common order.2. The appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 30-11-1979. The issue involved is regarding the claims made by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Surtax Act').3. The appeals have been fixed for hearing on several occasions. But the same have been adjourned from time to time at the request of the assessee on some ground or the other. Ultimately, the appeals were fixed up for hearing during which arguments are made before us by both the sides. Briefly speaking, the facts of the case are as stated below.4. The ITO noted in the assessment order for the assessment year 1969-70 that the order was being passed under Section 6(2) of the Surtax Act. The assessee is a comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1992]196ITR860(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. These four references -- two at the instance of the Commissioner and two at the instance of the assessee -- relating to the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, are heard together as common issues are involved.2. Income-tax Reference No. 359 of 1982, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1990 under Section 256(2) of the Act, both at the instance of the assessee, relate to the assessment year 1975-76.3. Income-tax Reference No. 73 of 1985, at the instance of the Revenue is for the assessment year 1976-77 and Income-tax Reference No. 38 of 1987, is also at the instance of the Revenue and is for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79.4. The questions in these four references involve four issues, viz. --(a) Bonus amounting to Rs. 8,03,086 claimed as deduction for the assessment year 1975-76 and consequential addition for the assessment year 1976-77.(b) Claim for liquidated damages amounting to Rs. 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1996Cal391,100CWN1048
1. These are two suits. The first suit is Suit No. 10 of 1988 which has been instituted by Gautam Majumdar and Subhas Chandra Majumdar against (1) Mithua Developments Pvt. Ltd. and (2) Maghan Aboth and Yasheebath Jacob Benjamin Elias, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Society'). The said suit was filed on llth January, 1988, inter alia, for the following reliefs: '(a) A decree for Rs. 2,86,546/- for damages against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as pleaded in paragraphs 20, 21 and 23 hereof; (b) An injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, their respective agents and/or representatives from interfering with and/or interrupting the lawful use, occupation and possession of the plaintiffs in the said premises No. 25, Black Burn Lane, Calcutta, the property in suit, in any manner whatsoever and/or from dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom; (c) An injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them, their re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1998(60)ECC48
Samaresh Banerjea, J.1. Common questions of law and fact being involved in both the writ petitions, the same have been heard analogously and will be governed by the same judgment.2. One of the questions which has come up for consideration in the instant writ proceedings, is, whether Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA) and Section 34(2) of FERA are ultra vires the Constitution of India and is illegal, invalid and null and void.3. Each of the writ petitioner has also challenged in the writ petition summons issued against each of them under Section 40(1) one of FERA by the appropriate authority on merits.4. In the writ petition No. 2580 of 1996, it is the case of the petitioner Ms. Amgana Sengupta, daughter of Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta, a former Judge of this Hon'ble Court and the Allahabad High Court, and who has obtained a Bachelor's Degree in law from London University and Master's Degree in law from Cambridge University and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT539(HC)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that a winding up petition under sections 433. 434 and 439 of the Companies Act. 1956 was filed by ICICI Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as ICICI) for winding up of M/S Maxlux Glass Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company). The Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as a private Company limited by shares. The authorised share capital of the Company is Rs. 100, 100,000.00 divided into 10,000.000 share of Rs. 10/- each. The issued and subscribed capital of the Company is Rs. 70,130,360.00 made up of equity shares of Rs. 10/- each fully paid up. The Company carries on business of manufacturing of different kind of glass article. The Company was indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.4,75,03.044/- as on 15th August. 1999 on account of money lent and advanced by the petitioner and not repaid by the Company. The petitioner claimed interest...
Tag this Judgment!