Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(1)CHN363
1. Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the Bengal Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1922, is as follows:--'4. Several instruments used in single transaction of sale, mortgage or settlement.--(1) Where, in the case of any sale, mortgage or settlement, several instruments are employed for completing the transaction, the principal instrument only shall be chargeable with the duty prescribed in Schedule 1 or in Schedule 1A, as the case may be, for the conveyance, mortgage or settlement and each of the other instruments shall be chargeable with a duty of one rupee, if the principal instrument be chargeable with the duty prescribed in Schedule 1 or with a duty of (two rupees), if the principal instrument be chargeable with the duly (if any) prescribed for such other instrument in Schedule 1 or Schedule 1A, as the case may be.(2) The parties may determine for themselves which of the instruments so employed shall, for the purposes of Sub-section (1), be deemed to be the principal instru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1991Cal205
ORDER1. The writ petitioner is the brother of Waris Ali Meerza, the third Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, who died sometime in 1969. The case of the petitioner is that he claims to be the present Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and Amir-ul-Omrah by virtue of succession from Syed Hassan Ali Meerza, the last Nawab Nazim of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the first Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad as per the following genealogical table :-- Fedoon Jah Mansoor Ali d 1884 | Sir Hassan Ali Khan (1St Nowad dt. 1906) | ----------------------------------------- | |Wasif Ali Meerza Nasir Ali Meerza(Second Nawab d. 1959) (No son) dt 1945 | ------------------------------------------------------- | | |Waris Ali Meerza Fetehyab Ali Meerza Kazem Ali(Third Nawab) (Born (Petitioner) Meeza1000 d. 20.11.69) (Born 1911)The petitioner's great grandfather Faridoon Jah Syed Mansoor Ali Khan was the Nawab Nazim of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and was an independent ruler of Subah-e-Bangala and the owner of moveable and immov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1993]201ITR668(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of has has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1971-72.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the levy of penalty underSection 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had lost his jurisdiction over this-case after the omission of Section 274(2) from the statute book with effect from April 1, 1976 ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that during the assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee's claim of commission payment of about Rs. 12.13 lakhs was not supported by adequate evidence. The Income-tax Officer also found that some notices issued under Section 131 and letters written under Section 133(b) to the alleged recipients of the commission were either returned unserved or there was no compliance with the terms ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1984(2)CHN78,88CWN1002,[1985]155ITR281(Cal)
U.C. Bankejee, J.1. This appeal is against an ex parte order of injunction granted by A.K. Janah J. (as he then was) on the writ petition of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, directing an order of injunction restraining the State Government from giving any effect to the notification being No. 1042-F.T. dated March 31, 1984, issued under Section 8 of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922.2. The principal question that arises in this appeal as also in the writ petition, which was also taken up for hearing on the joint prayer of the parties along with the appeal, is whether the notification dated March 31, 1984, is violative of the constitutional safeguards under Article 14 of the Constitution or not.3. Mr. Ajit Kumar Panja, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, contended that the impugned notification is discriminatory in nature and has treated equals unequally. Mr. Panja contended that the classification made by the State Government is wholly unwarranted and unauthorised and the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1970]76ITR26(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessment out-of which this referencearises is m respect of the assessment year 1959-60; the relevant previous year ended on the 31st March, 1959. The assessee is a company. The assessee had purchased certain plant and machinery of the value of Rs. 2,23,257 between 15th November, 1955, and 1st July, 1958. After setting off the price of the machinery sold during the relevant previous year, the assessee claimed both normal and additional depreciation on Rs. 2,10,445 for the assessment year in question. The Income-tax Officer allowed normal depreciation under the provisions of Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but he disallowed the assessor's claim for additional depreciation under Section 10(2)(via) of the Act amounting to Rs. 29,618. There was an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that, according to Section 10(2)(via) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the additional depreciati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1993(41)ECC18,1992(58)ELT542(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The facts of the case are as under:-2. The petitioner at all material times carried on and still now carries on the business of manufacturing hosiery garments. By the Finance Act, 1971 a new Tariff Item No. 22D was inserted in the First Schedule to the said Act for the first time which covered inter alia articles of ready to wear apparel including undergarments and body supporting garments but excluding articles of hosiery. As articles of hosiery were specifically excluded, the petitioner was admittedly not liable to pay any central excise duty at that time and there was no dispute with regard thereto.3. Tariff Item No. 68 was inserted in the First Schedule to the said Act with effect from March 1,1975. The Central Excise Authorities thereafter took the view that the petitioner had become liable to pay central excise duty on the said goods under Tariff Item No. 68. The petitioner was required by the central excise authorities to obtain central excise licence and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)1CALLT281(HC)
K.M. Yusuf, J.1. All the Rules are taken up analogously for hearing as the point is one and the same and are disposed of by this judgment.2. By virtue of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and proceedings started thereunder the Government acquired a large number of plots of land for development of industries in Durgapur Area and the possession was taken over sometime in 1964. In 1967 there were awards and the petitioners received the amount of the awards in October the same year. There was an Ordinance being No. 1 of 1967 which was replaced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967. By virtue of Section 4(3) of the Amendment Act of 1967 a provision for the payment of simple interest calculated at 6 per cent per annum on the market value of the land acquired and as determined under' Section 23 of the principal Act was made. Thereafter the petitioners were served with a notice under the Amendment Act of 1967 sometime in March 1976 and the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)195CTR(Cal)39,[2005]276ITR49(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. 1. The points raised :This appeal was admitted on the following two grounds :'I. Whether, when a second revised return was filed under Section 139(5) of the Act within the specified period of one year from the end of the relevant assessment order (year), the AO is obliged to adjust the demand made under Section 143(1)(a) raised on the basis of the earlier returns and whether the Tribunal is justified in law in deciding the case without considering the legal position ?II. Whether, in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed a revised return on 7th Jan., 1991 claiming a loss of Rs. 2,49,05,044 and carry forward the loss of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 6,26,26,557 the Tribunal without deciding the question as to whether there was any reduction of loss consequent upon the filing of the second revised return on 7th Jan., 1991 could send the matter back when there was no dispute regarding the carry forward unabsorbed depreciation of a sum of Rs. 6,26,26,557 ?'Facts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1992]73CompCas385(Cal)
Sengupta, J. 1. Upon the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party,the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Eigth Court, Calcutta, directed issuanceof summons against the petitioners, one of whom is a public limited companyand the other its managing director to answer charges under Section 141, readwith Section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. In the petition of complaint, it has been, inter alia, alleged : (a) Against supply of steel rounds to the petitioner company, two cheques bearing No. 1277900, dated January 28, 1989, for Rs. 2,00,000 and No. 1277903, dated February 10, 1989, for Rs. 1,50,000 were issued in favour of the complainant's firm, namely, M/s. Standard Engineering Company, 40, Strand Road, Calcutta-1, by the petitioner-company acting through its managing director, i.e., the second petitioner, drawn on Indian Bank, Main Branch; Coimbatore. (b) In due course, the said cheques were presented with the complainant's bank, viz., Oriental Bank of Commerce,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)ILLJ564Cal
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. The Facts 1. Kelvin Jute Mills Company Limited had two units viz. Kelvin Jute Mills and Kelvin Broadloom Division. Hooghly Mills Company Limited took over Kelvin Broadloom Division. Kelvin Broadloom Division is known as Waverly Jute Mills Company. Thus, the two units of Kelvin Jute Mills Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Kelvin) became separated from each other w.e.f. June 30, 1986, the date when Hooghly Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Hooghly Mills) took over Kelvin Broadloom Division known as Waverly Jute Mills Company, (hereinafter referred to as Waverly). The provident fund account of Kelvin, prior to transfer of Waverly, was a fund exempted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act). The said fund was managed by Kelvin Jute Mill Co. Ltd.' Workers Provident Fund Trust, (hereinafter referred to as Kelvin Trust). The said fund consisted of the provident f...
Tag this Judgment!