Kolkata Court August 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD215(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the department is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 7-1-1991 for the assessment year 1987-88. The only ground raised in the appeal is as under: For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,90,829 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 accepting fresh evidences produced before him which were not produced earlier before the Assessing Officer in violation of Rule 46A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.2. There is a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal. The facts which give rise to the delay are as under : The order of the CIT(A) was received by the CIT, WB-VI, Calcutta on 5-3-1991, and, therefore, the appeal to the Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 4-5-1991. The appeal was filed on 3-5-1991 originally and also was numbered by the office of the Tribunal as ITA No. 1427 ...
Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jamirah Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD675(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue objecting to the order of the CIT (Appeals) cancelling a penalty of Rs. 90,451 imposed under Section 273(2)(aa) of the Income-tax Act. 1961.2. The assessee is a company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of tea and also trading in industrial gases. The assessment year is 1985-86 for which the previous year ended on 31-12-1984. The assessee submitted a revised estimate of its income for purposes of advance tax on 15-12-1984 estimating its income at Rs. 14,50,000 and paid advance tax of Rs. 8,06,542 thereon. This estimate was considered to be falling within the mischief of Section 2 73 (2) (aa) of the Act as the total income assessed under Section 143(3) on 28-3-1988 amounted to Rs. 25,26,490 which, on appeal, was reduced to Rs. 24,44,700 as could be seen from the revised order passed under Section 251 on 21-9-1988. Before completing the assessment, the ITO had initiated penalty proceedings under Section 273(2)(aa) of the Act and called ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jamirah Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)45TTJ(Cal)393
ORDERD. S. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT :This is an appeal by the Revenue objecting to the order of the CIT(A) cancelling a penalty of Rs. 90,451 imposed under S. 273(2)(aa) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of tea and also trading in industrial gases. The assessment year is 1985-86 for which the previous year ended on 31st Dec., 1984. The assessee submitted a revised estimate of its income for purposes of advance tax on 15th Dec., 1984 estimating its income at Rs. 14,50,000 and paid advance tax of Rs. 8,06,542 thereon. This estimate was considered to be falling within the mischief of S. 273(2)(aa) of the Act as the total income assessed under S. 143(3) on 28th March, 1988 amounted to Rs. 25,26,490 which, on appeal, was reduced to Rs. 24,44,700, as could be seen from the revised order passed under S. 251 on 21st Sept., 1988. Before completing the assessment, the ITO had initiated penalty proceedings under S. 273(2)(aa...
Kesoram Industries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD18(Kol.)
1. These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Department.Hence they were heard together and are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. These appeals arise out of the income-tax assessment of M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., the assessee herein, which was formerly known as M/s.Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. The assessment year is 1970-71 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1970. These appeals arise out of the re-assessment made by the IAC, Assessment, Range-B(C), Calcutta under Section 143(3)/147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by his order dated 8-11-1985.3. At the time of hearing of these appeals Shri R.N. Bajoria, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that he was not pressing Grounds No. 2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.Accordingly the said two grounds are rejected as not pressed.4. This leaves us with Ground No. 1 wherein the assessee challenges the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 1...
Pranab Kumar Ray and Another Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Cal50,(1993)1CALLT69(HC),97CWN330,1994(48)ECC152
ORDER1. The writ petitioners have challenged the validity of the decision of the Reserve Bank of India as communicated by letter dated 13th January, 1990 rejecting the request of the petitioner No. 1 to releaseforeign exchange for his son, petitioner No. 2, for prosecuting LL.B. (Hons.) Course at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. Since the impugned letter dated 17th January, 1990 refers to policy guidelines contained in the Book of Instructions of the Reserve Bank of India relating to release of foreign exchange for LL.B. Course leading to Honours degree at Cambridge/Oxford Universities only, these guidelines have become an issue in this writ proceeding as the discloser of the same justifies the action of the Reserve Bank of India. The prayer is to quash the communication dated 28th September, 1989 by the RBI expressing regret to release any foreign exchange under the Existing Control Regulations and also the impugned communication dated 13th January, 1990 by the RBI to th...
Md. Abdus Salam Alias Sk. Vs. Sub-divisional Controller, F. and S. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Cal339
ORDER1. This writ application is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supply, Basirhat placing the Kerosene Oil dealership of the petitioner under suspension and cancelling the licence after giving opportunities to show-cause and also personal hearing. The dealer-ship licence of the petitioner was temporarily suspended by the respondent No. 1, the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supply Basirhat by his order dated 27-6-91 under the provision of para 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 on the ground of several irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as enumerated in the said order. By the said order the respondent No. 1 also directed the petitioner to show-cause in writing within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why his licence should not be cancelled. It was also mentioned therein that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the same an ex parte decision might b...
Prabir Chandra Ghose Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(62)ELT713(Cal)
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This case arises out of a show cause notice dated 9-11-1979 requiring the petitioner M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya to show cause why a payment of Rs. 70,422.22 p. should not be paid by the petitioner under the Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 as issued under the Central Excise Act. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice, The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, however, held by an order dated 2-6-1980 that the petitioner was liable to pay duty of Rs. 79,496.82 p. in terms of the aforesaid show cause notice. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector who by an order dated 31-7-1981 held that:'I accept the above contentions of the appellants that for the purpose of determination of the eligibility of an assessee for the exemption under Notification No. 71/78 the clearance value of each of the items specified in the Notification is to be taken separately as provided in the Notification. Moreover, the appellants are entitled to ava...
Sushil Kumar Kayan Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(68)ELT537(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. The appellant imported a consignment, weighing 1995.180 Metric Tons of Seconds/Defective Zinc Aluminium Sheets in coils from European Economic Community in August, 1985 and declared the value of the goods at Rs. 2440.76 per metric ton. On 25th September, 1985, the said goods were examined on the original Bill of Entry and the goods were found to be as per declaration on the Bill of Entry. There is no dispute that the goods imported are seconds/defective Zinc Aluminium Sheets in Coils. The appellant kept the goods in the warehouse of the West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation.2. After over a period in September/October, 1986, the Customs Authorities assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 3,995/- per metric ton against the appellant's declared value of Rs. 2,440.76 per metric ton.3. The appellant moved a writ application in this Court challenging the said enhancement and asserting that there was no basis or material available with Customs Authorities to enhan...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD158(Kol.)
1. The revenue has filed ITA Nos. 1751 to 1753 (Cal.)/89 and the assessee has filed cross objection Nos. 113-115 (Cal.)/89. As they involve determination of a common controversy the appeals and the cross objections were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The sole controversy in these revenue's appeals are that the Appellate Commissioner was not justified in holding that the Assessing Officer cannot withdraw the interest allowed by him under Section 244(1A) of the Act which was granted to the assessee-company while passing orders giving effect to the appellate orders.3. The grievance of the assessee-company in the cross objections is that the Appellate Commissioner did not possess power to reduce or withdraw the interest granted under Section 244(1A) of the Act while giving effect to the direction of the appellate authority. Another grievance which has been made out by the assessee in the cross objection is that the Appella...
Dindayal Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD202(Kol.)
assessing officer allowing change of previous year without enquiry and also taxwise prejudicial to revenue--Revisional jurisdiction invocable.There was no material on record either in the form of notices and/or letters issued by the Income Tax Officer seeking clarifications from the assessee regarding the change or in the form of entries in the order sheet indicating that the pros and cons of the change of the accounting period were weighed and a conscious decision, after due application of mind, was taken. Therefore, the Commissioner's finding that no enquiry had been conducted by the Income Tax Officer before passing the order under section 3(4) is correct. The income by way of lottery earned in September, 1984 was taxable under the Act, and would have been brought to tax, in the assessee's case, for the previous year ended on 31-3-1985 relevant for the assessment year 1985-86. By reason of the change granted by the Income Tax Officer, the assessment year 1985-86 was skipped. The lo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »