Kolkata Court May 1993 Judgments
Guru Nanak Estates and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Cal)356,[1994]208ITR118(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. On December 23, 1981, the income-tax authorities carried out a search and seizure against Messrs. Veekay Properties Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as 'the company') and its two directors. The petitioner No. 1 (referred to as 'the firm') had its office in the same place as the company and the directors of the company were also partners of the firm. In the course of conducting the search at the company's office and residence of one of its directors, certain books of account and other documents relating to the firm were seized. However, no further action was taken by the income-tax authorities against the firm in connection with such seizures.2. More than five years later, the firm submitted a settlement petition to the Commissioner in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 disclosing its gross receipts by sale of space in a building constructed by the firm and offering to pay tax on the net profit at eight per cent. The petitioner also prayed for leave to pay the tax i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Price Waterhouse
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR564(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1985-86, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for modification of the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the disallowance made under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, according to the correct interpretation of law ?'2. The facts relating to this reference are that the Assessing Officer had excluded Rs. 2,56,286 on account of repairs, etc., of motor cars from the motor car expenses in calculating the disallowance under Section 37(3A) which amounted to Rs. 64,688.3. At the time of passing the appellate order, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) enhanced the disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Act. He directed the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment afte...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer and ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar Dalmia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Cal)17,[1994]208ITR337(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the judgment and order dated March 11, 1993, passed by the court of first instance quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequent reassessment, if any, for the assessment year 1973-74. The learned judge, after considering the recorded reasons, came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie evidence at all to show that the assessee has received a higher price than disclosed.2. The reasons which have been recorded by the Income-tax Officer are as follows :'During the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee has sold its land with building at 65, G. T. Road, Howrah, for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000 as per conveyance deed and disclosed income under the head 'Capital gains' at Rs. 13,000 and the assessment was completed accordingly. But subsequently, it was found on investigation that the market price of the said property was much more than the price shown in the sale deed. Henc...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Subir Ranjan Mondal Vs. Sita Nath Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Cal166,98CWN544
ORDER1. Whether S. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to an 'application' u/S. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the question that needs to be decided in the aforesaid six Revisional Applications. Initially C.O. Nos. 3598 and 3599 of 1991, C.O. No. 3615 of 1991 and C.O. No. 852 of 1991 were heard by me at length and the judgments were reserved. Subsequently, two other revisional applications, namely, C.R. Nos. 2992 and 2993 of 1986, came up for hearing before me in which the same question was involved.2. The learned lawyers, appearing for the respective parties in the subsequent two revisional applications, wanted to argue the said two revisional applications and for that reason, I had to hear them as well. In order to give opportunities to the learned lawyers, appearing for the parties in the subsequent two revisional applications, I had to reserve my judgments of the other four revisionalapplications which were heard earlier. C.R...
Tag this Judgment!Sumant Chandra Mishra and Others Vs. Smt. Anjali Ghatak and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Cal275,(1993)2CALLT156(HC)
ORDERMukul Gopal Mukherji, J.1. This revisional application filed by the tenant-defendants impugns an Order No. 95 dated October 4, 1991 passed by the Assistant District Judge, First Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 42 of 1987 whereby an in application under Section 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 filed by the tenants-defendants, they were found defaulters in payment of rent from February, 1983 to May 1987 at the rate of Rupees 810-07 paise per month according to English Calendar and further they were made liable to pay interest accrued for the rents from August, 1982 to January, 1983 which were already lying deposited before the Court. The arrears were computed at Rs. 42,123-64 paise for February, 1983 to May, 1987 which they were directed to deposit along with interest at the rate of 8.33% per annum at a cumulative rate together with interests calculated at the aforesaid rate from the date of deposit of the rent from August, 1982 to January, 1983. They we...
Tag this Judgment!Chandi Charan Karmakar and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT365(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. In Title Suit No. 339 of 1987 before the learned Munsif at Kalyani, District-Nadia, a question arose as to whether the respondent No. 4 herein is or is not a bargadar in respect of the disputed land. A reference was accordingly made by the learned Munsif Under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter shortened into Act) for deciding the said question. On the basis of the said reference, the J.L.R.O. concerned had submitted a report on 3.6.89. Subsequently, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Haringhata, had also submitted another report on July 19, 1989, which was contrary to the earlier report submitted by the J.L.R.O. In the aforesaid circumstances, on writ application being filed by the writ petitioner, N. K. Mitra, J. by order dated 28.8.89, which was subsequently partly modified by order dated 14.2.90, had disposed of the same making it clear therein that the learned Munsif while disposing of the suit will take into consideration t...
Tag this Judgment!Bijan Halder and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3082
ORDERGitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this revisional application several important questions of law have been raised which will be discussed later. On 16th September, 1988 the petitioners, who were earlier arrested on the 15th September, 1988 by customs officials under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, were produced before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, Nadia and they were remanded to jail custody after rejection of their prayer for bail. Thereafter on 30th September, 1988 the petitioners were released on bail by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently on the basis of a complaint filed by the Superintendent of Customs in respect of offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, the learned Magistrate took cognizance.2. The first point argued before me by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioners is that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate in this case is bad in law of the fact that the complaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Monoranjan Das Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT11(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. By the instant revisional application under Section 401, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shortened into Code), the petitioner has prayed the Court for quashing the impugned order dated 29.1.88 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia, in Sessions Case No. 41(3) of 1985, being Sessions Trial No. II of January 1988, before him and for quashing the charge under Section 201, read with Section 120-B, I.P.C., and the relevant proceedings against him on the grounds set forth therein.2. While attached to Mirabazar R.O.P. as Sub-Inspector of Police under Police Station Kaliganj, Nadia, the Petitioner had investigated Kaliganj P.S. U.D. Case No. II dated 4.4.84 on the basis of a complaint by one Hamizuddin Sk. on the death of one Nafisa Bibi, wife of Nakibuddin Sk. of Janakinagar. He (petitioner) had held Inquest on the said dead body, and suspecting it to be a case of death by poisoning he had sent the dead bod...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Banthia Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(65)ELT363(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioner is a partner of M/s. Parasnath Industries referred to as 'the firm'). The firm imported umbrella panels of different sizes and colours in March 1993. There was six separate consignments of umbrella panels. Each of the six consignments was examined by the Customs authorities and found to correspond to the description of the goods in the voices.2. The Customs Authorities, however have refused to release the six consignments unless the petitioner executed a P.D. Bond and submitted a bank garantee for 50% of the amount. The endorsement of each of the bills of entry ads - 'submit P.D. Bond + submit bank guarantee as ascertained as practise (sic)m Bombay Customs. If no bank guarantee is taken at Bombay no bank garantee shall be taken at Calcutta (W/O prejudice to Collectors order in (sic))'.3. The petitioners moved this writ application on 10th May, 1993 upon notice to the Customs Authorities. The Customs Authorities stated that they had evidence of under-valuat...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Dhanuka Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT361(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The subject matter of controversy in this writ application is the liability of the petitioner to pay interest on goods warehoused by the petitioner under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The goods in question being 207.601 LDPE Granules, arrived on 28 November 1990 from Hongkong by SS Vishwa Prafulla. On 4th December 1990 the Bill of Entry for warehousing was filed under Section 59 of the Act. A separate portion of the goods arrived subsequently by another ship. However the facts relating to the separate portion are immaterial for the purposes of this case.3. On 2nd November 1989 a public notice No. 406/89 was issued by the Collector of Customs to the following effect:'Representation had been received by the Central Board of Excise & Customs from the trade against the levy of interest on the amount of Customs Duty on warehoused goods cleared from warehouse without payment of duty either for export or for home consumption. The importers have been disputing the levy ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »