Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)79TTJ(Kol.)915
1. The appeals filed by the assesses are directed against the common order dt. 16th Dec., 1998, passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs.1985-86 and 1986-87.2. The main effective common ground in these cases is that the lower authorities refused to carry forward the business loss of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 for setting off with his business income for subsequent assessment year on the ground that the returns for the said assessment years were filed late.3. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the lower authorities were not justified in refusing to carry forward the business loss claimed by the assessee. It was further contended that while refusing to carry forward the business loss the AO failed to take note of several judicial decisions to the effect that return of income filed under Section 139(4) should be deemed to have been filed under Section 139 of the IT Act and consequently, the business loss determined on the basis of such belated return ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1976]38STC163(Cal)
S.K. Mukhekjea, J.1. This application has come up before us for decision, on a reference made by P.K. Banerjee, J., under Rule 1(1) of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules.2. The reference involves the question of validity of the retrospective operation of the definition of 'business' in Clause (la) of Section 2 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, a definition introduced by means of an amendment by Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969, and similar enactments.3. The petitioners, Bengal Paper Mill Company Limited, carry on business of manufacturing paper. They are registered dealers under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.4. The petitioners' case is that for the manufacture of paper they purchase chemicals and stores. Those chemicals and stores are usually received by the petitioners packed in drums and bags. After use, the drums, bags or other containers in which the said stores and chemicals are received become useless an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal213
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of the husband against the wife for annulment of the marriage celebrated on 13th May, 1973. The application was filed on 13th December, 1973. The husband in his petition stated that they were married according to the Hindu rites on 13th May, 1973. On 14th May, 1973 the couple returned to the residence of the petitioner at 7, Haridas Daw Road, p. S. Behala. On the night of 15th May. 1973 which was the Fulsajja night, the petitioner, it is alleged, desired and demanded to consummate the marriage but the respondent refused to agree and in fact she made terrible opposition amounting to invincible repugnance to the act of consummation and the petitioner found her to be mentally depressed which deterred the petitioner from making further progress for consummation of marriage. On May 20, 1973 the couple went back to the quarters of Ashis Bhowmick, brother of the wife, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1982Cal474
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. On April, 1976 the appellant husband had filed a petition in the Court of the learned District Judge, Alipore under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty and that she had deserted him. After the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 was enacted, the appellant husband applied in the trial court for amendment of his petition, inter alia, by substituting in place of the prayer for judicial separation a prayer for decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial court had allowed the said prayer for amendment. The respondent wife had contested the said suit, inter alia, denying the allegations of cruelty and desertion made by her husband.2. The learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore dismissed the said suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff husband has filed the present appeal.3. On 10th April, 1981 the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1982Cal547,86CWN213
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. The appellant wife has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court, Alipore dissolving her marriage with the respondent hushand under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Additional District Judge, however, dismissed the prayer of the respondent husband for annulling the marriage of the parties on the ground specified in Section 12(1)(b) of the said Act. The respondent husband has also filed a cross-objection against the said dismissal of his prayer for annulment of their marriage.2. On 3rd March, 1976 the marriage between the appellant and the respondent according to Hindu rites took place at 50/1, Shib Tbakurbari Lane, P. S. Behala, District 24 Parganas. On 21st Sept., 1976 Dilip Kumar Bag, the respondent herein, had presented in the Court of the District Judge, 24 Parganas his petition for annulment of his marriage with the appellant under Section 12 and in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal374,85CWN73
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The petitioner has alleged that on the 16th August, 1959, he was married to the respondent No. 1, Devika Roy, according to the Hindu rites in Calcutta. After the marriage, two children were born. From April to November, 1969, while he lived in his quarters at Rishra, he had to leave Rishra for Calcutta in connexion with his official duties at 8 a.m. and return home at about 7.30 p.m. The co-respondent, Dr. Saroj Sen, is the Medical Officer of the Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India, where the petitioner is employed as Project Manager. Dr. Sen used to treat the members of his family from 1966 to 1969. On the morning of 6th November, 1969, all of a sudden he returned to Rishra. On that date, Dr. Sen committed adultery with his wife in that quarters. The two children were taken away by their 'Ayah' under the direction of Devika. So, he began to suspect them until to be sure about the same subsequently. Dr. Sen committed adultery with Devika from April, 1969, and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : II(1997)DMC69
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated the 22nd February, 1991 in Matrimonial Suit No. 6/1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, granting decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in favour of the petitioner- husband and against the wife on the ground of cruelty of the wife. The husband who is respondent herein filed the suit for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The parties are Sikh by religion and are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They were married according to Sikh rites and ceremonies on or about 23rd January, 1970 at 2/3A, Panditiya Road, Calcutta-29. Their marriage was consummated and two sons were born in that wedlock, - one on 28th May, 1972 and the other on 17th September, 1974. Both the sons however have, by now, crossed their minority and have attained majority. At the time of the marriage the petitioner was in service in the Security Force as an Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal87
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. On February 27, 1963 the respondent Sukomal Choudhury, had married the appellant, Bijoli Choudhnry, according to Buddhist Rites at P 12/1, Dihi Serampore Road, P. S. Beniapu-kur, Calcutta. On 23rd November, 1972 the respondent-husband presented a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the District Judge's Court, Alipore praying for a decree of judicial separation. The present appellant contested the said case. The learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore by his judgment dated 7th July, 1975 granted a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the appellant had treated her husband respondent herein with cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the learned Additional District Judge, she had also deserted her husband for two years or more within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the said Act. The appellant wife has presented this appeal against the said decision of the learned Add...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : II(1998)DMC19
S. Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband against a decree of divorce on mutual consent passed on July 30,1987 by the District Judge, 24 Pgs. (S), Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 629 of 1986 in spite of a subsequent unwillingness expressed prior to the passing of a decree.2. The age long concept of a Hindu Marriage being an unbreakable marital tie of the so-called life partners is almost outdated by now. The dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been made possible within the ambit of law at the instance of either of the unwilling or aggrieved spouse but only on proof of certain established allegation being statutory ground as enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said Act did not earlier contemplate a situation when both the spouses (husband and wife) choose to go for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent but of the late, in the year 1976 this probability necessitated for an enactment and accordingly, Section 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1989Cal120,(1989)1CALLT104(HC),93CWN102
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. Thematrimonial proceeding under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, giving rise to this appeal, -was initiated by the husband-appellant against the wife-respendent for a declaration that the marriage was a nullity because of the under-age of the appellant and, in the alternative, for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife. The petition which was thus a composite one under Section 24 as well as Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act has however been dismissed which has led the husband to file this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Tapan Dutta, who has argued the appeal with singular ability and persistence, has, in his endeavour to assail the order, made a strenuous attempt to do so on an additional ground, namely, that the marriage between the parties having found to have been broken down irretrievably and irreparably ought to have been dissolved by a decree of divorce on that ground also....
Tag this Judgment!