Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-12-1994
Reported in : [1995]214ITR532(Cal)
..... assessed as such, then, in respect of the assessee's share in the income of the firm, the period determined as the previous year for the assessment of the income of the firm ; or (g) in respect of profits and gains from life insurance business, the year immediately preceding the assessment year for which annual accounts are required to be prepared under the insurance act, 1938 (4 of 1938), or under that act read with section 43 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31'of 1956). (2) where an assessee has newly set up a business or profession in the said financial year and his accounts are made up to a date in the assessment year in respect of a period not ..... , an assessee has once exercised the option under clause (b) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) or sub-clause (i) of clause (e) of sub-section (1) or has once been assessed, then, he shall not, in respect of that source, or, as the case may be, business or profession, be entitled to vary the meaning of the expression 'previous year' as then applicable to him, except with the consent of the income-tax officer and upon such conditions as the income-tax officer may think fit to impose.' 10. the normal accounting .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-30-1994
Reported in : (1996)1CALLT200(HC)
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 10th March, 1994, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C. O. No. 8215 (W) of 1994, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 questioning an order of discharge dated 23rd February 1990, as contained in Annexure 'C to the writ petition was allowed and the appellant company was directed to allow the writ petitioner to Join his services forthwith and confirm the petitioner as he had fulfilled the pre-condition for getting confirmation. It was further directed that the writ petitioner would be entitled to be paid full salary during the intervening period. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Probationary Development Officer at Chandil attached to Jamshedpur Branch under Ranchi Divisional Office, by an offer of appointment dated 18/22-2-88. In the said letter of appointment, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-01-1994
Reported in : 99CWN181,[1995(70)FLR770],(1995)IILLJ148Cal
Umesh Chandra Banerjee. J. 1. The doctrine of natural justice has a deeprooted foundation in the concept of fair-play and justice. This concept of fairness or fair-play, however, cannot by any stretch be said to be inflexible in nature and its flexibility is its real virtue, be it noted here that it is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice ought to be made applicable but the same depends upon the facts and circumstances of the matter in issue. The observation of Lord Denning M.R. in R. v. Gaming Board of Great Britain ex. p. Benaim and Khaida 1970(2) Q.B.417 lends support to the view expressed above. 2. This concept of natural justice and fair play has come for increasing judicial scrutiny in recent years and the Law Courts have been in the past and still are expanding its frontiers depending upon the situations. This expansion of doctrine of fairplay, equity and justice culminating in the concept of natural justice is effected by reason of c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-28-1994
Reported in : [1995]213ITR236(Cal)
DILLON L. J. These proceedings involve five taxpayer companies, B. M. I (No. 3) Ltd. B. M. I (No. 6) Ltd. B. M. I (No. 9) Ltd. Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd. and Fitzroy Finance Ltd. They are members of a group of which the parent is Mercantile Group Plc., a company associated with Barclays Bank Plc. In relation to each of the five companies there is an appeal and a cross-appeal against a decision of Vinelott J. given on 27 January 1994 [1994] 2 W. L. R. 795. He had before him appeals by the Crown from decisions of the special commissioners in respect of each of the five companies. For the purposes of this judgment it is unnecessary to draw any distinction between an of the five companies; the issues are the same. It is also immaterial that in the cases of four of the companies the appeals to this court are by the Crown and the cross-appeals are by the companies, while in the case of the fifth company the appeal is by the company and the cross-appeal is by the Crown.The esse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-07-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Cal169,(1995)1CALLT98(HC)
ORDER1. The instant application has been made by M/s. Loyal Shipping Pvt, Ltd., (hereinafter also referred to as 'the defendant') a company incorporated under the laws of the repubulic of Bangladesh, who is the owner of M.V, Loyal Bird, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said vessel'). M/s. Al-Amin Seatrans Ltd. which is also a company incorporated under the laws of Bangladesh, instituted the above Admiralty Suit and obtained an order dated 7th July, 1994, for arrest of the said vessel m.v. 'Loyal Bird'. Pursuant to the said order the said vessel was arrested while lying at the Haldia Docks. The said vessel was thereafter allowed by this Court to be shifted to the Port at Calcutta.2. One of the salient features of this case isthat the Chairman of the Board of Directorsof the plaintiff is also the chairman of theBoard 6f Directors of the defendant. TheManaging Director of the plaintiff is also theManaging Director of the defendant. Theonly other two directors of the plaintiff arealso, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-21-1994
Reported in : 99CWN897,(1996)IIILLJ188Cal
Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order, dated September 1, 1994, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioner appellant was summarily dismissed. 2. The facts of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is September 10, 1959 which was also recorded in the register maintained by Durgapur T.N. Singh School, wherein the petitioner allegedly read from Class V4. The petitioner contended that he appeared in the year 1975 in the Higher Secondary Examination in the science stream from the said school but failed therein. His date of birth as aforementioned was stated by the headmaster of the said school in the certificates, dated December 22, 1978 and September 20, 1991. 5. The petitioner thereafter joined training in the Trade Course of Fitter in the Industrial Training Institute, Durgapur. Upon completion of his training, he was appointed as an...
Tag this Judgment!