Kolkata Court June 1993 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.
Chandrakant Seth Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: 1996(55)ECC31,1993(68)ELT289(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioner had imported certain goods. The goods were assessed to Duty and the petitioner took delivery of the goods. Such importation took place in the year 1983. On 17th February, 1986 five several Show-Cause Notices were issued to the petitioner in respect of this importation under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The petitioner was detained under COFEPOSA in March, 1986. According to the petitioner, he was detained on allegations which were identical with those contained in the Show-Cause Notice. According to the petitioner, the Central Advisory Board released the petitioner on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for petitioner's detention. On 8th July, 1986 the petitioner asked for furnishing various documents, information, materials etc. The Collector, according to the petitioner, fixed the date of hearing on 14th July, 1986. It is the petitioner's further case that although inspection of certai...
Associated Pigments Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1993
Reported in: 1993(68)ELT514(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioner company manufactures Lead Oxide Grey. The dispute in this case is whether Lead Oxide is classifiable under sub-heading No. 2804.60 as per the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as Lead Oxide, Red Lead and Orange Lead or whether it is classifiable under sub-heading No. 3823.00 as follows :-'Prepared binders for foundry moulds or cores; chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included; residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included.'.2. With effect from 28th February, 1986 Tariff Items under sub-heading No. 2804.60 were introduced as separate items which read as follows :-'Lead Oxide, Read Lead and Orange Lead -10%'3. Subsequent to such introduction the petitioners paid Excise duty on the products manufactured by it under protest on the basis that the products manufactured by it were classifiable u...
Nilendu Sen Vs. Pratip Kumar Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT394(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th of August, 1983, passed by her Lordship, the Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Padma Khastgir in testamentary Suit No. 20 of 1981.2. We shall now set out the backgorund in which the litigation was launched.3. Berefof unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that one Amiyabala executed a Will on 6.8.72, in favour of the propounder, Pratip Kr. Sen, one of the sons of the testatrix. It is needless to say that Amiyabala passed away a little over 5 years since the execution of the Will in English language. She was governed by the Hindu Succession Act and bequeathed all her properties both movable and immovable in an outside jurisdiction of this Court in favour of her relations as detailed in the Will.4. It is conspicuous from the affidavit of assets, filed by the propounder under the Will that it did not exceed the sum of Rs. 62,000/-. The propounder has disclosed in his petition for probate about the heirs...
Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR740(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in rejecting the admission of an alternate additional ground (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for taxation of Rs. 1,81,00,000 constitutes a fund within the meaning of Clause (ii) of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that if the cost of investment in shares which did not produce any income was excluded from computation of the capital under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies ...
UjjaIn General Trading Society Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR583(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged, inter alia, the legality and/or validity of a notice dated March 19, 1976, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1959-60. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner is an investment company having income from dividends and interest on deposits. This application relates to the assessment of the petitioner under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'), for the assessment year 1959-60, for which the relevant accounting year ended on March 31, 1959. The petitioner maintained its accounts according to the mercantile system of accountancy.2. As on March 31, 1949, the petitioner had 40,000 equity shares in Rajasthan Trading Co. Ltd. In March, 1949, Rajasthan Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the new company') came into existence with a share capital of 36,300 ordinary shares o...
In Re : Chandan Kumar Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT457(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The present joint writ petition was moved on behalf of 8 writ petitioners, challenging the rotational order of transfer dated August 14, 1992, whereby the petitioners, who were working as 'Junior Officers' of the Central Bank of India, were posted to their original posting as 'Senior Clerks' in the respective branches.2. When the writ petition was moved ex parte before this Court on August 31, 1992, upon hearing Mr. Ashoke De, learned Advocate for the petitioners, this Court directed service of copy of the writ petition upon the Central Bank authorities and the respondents were directed to maintain 'Status quo', as on the date, regarding the present officiating services of the writ petitioners as Junior Officers till September 14, 1992, with liberty to the petitioners to apply for extension thereof upon notice to the respondents. The said interim order was, however, extended on September 22, 1992, in the presence of Mr. R.N. Majumdar, learned Advocate app...
Hridayananda Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT258(HC)
Partitosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This is a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arising out of an order passed by Shri J.K. Kohli, Member, Board of Revenue, dated September 12, 1989, arising out of the Certificate Proceedings for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- which was imposed as penalty on the petitioner by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise.2. At the time of admission of the writ petition, A.K. Nandy, J. (as His Lordship then was), directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,300/- with the Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and the Registrar was directed to keep the said amount in an account wherefrom the amount may be readily refunded either to the petitioner or to the Government for appropriation, under the direction of this Court.3. This writ petition has come up for final hearing before me on June 2, 1992 and on subsequent dates in the presence of Mr. Sukumar Guha and...
Dinabandhu Banerjee Vs. Nandini Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ422
ORDERGitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This revisional application has been made for quashing the proceeding, being No. 1565C/92 (T.R. No. 215/92, T.R. No. 86/92) pending in the 3rd Court of, Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. The said proceeding was started by a complaint filed by the complainant opposite party herein on 19th September, 1992 against 3 accused persons. In the said criminal proceeding cognizance was taken and process was issued against the accused persons in respect of offences under Sections 403/405/406, IPC. The petitioner in this criminal revision is the accused No. 2. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 are his son and wife respectively. The complainant opposite party is the wife of the accused No. 1. They were married in April, 1986. The petitioner is a resident of Howrah. The accused No. 1 took his wife, the complainant to Bombay sometime in August, 1987 and they stayed together there and subsequently the complainant returned from Bombay allegedly due to the misbehaviour of the ac...
independence Transport Shipping Agency Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT472(Cal)
ORDERRuma Pal, J.1. This matter has come up for reconsideration after it was disposed of on 20th April, 1993 in favour of the writ petitioners. On 20th April, 1993 the order had been passed in the absence of the respondents. The respondents then made an application for recalling the order which was allowed. I have now heard the submissions of the parties afresh.2. The question in issue before this Court is whether the persons who have been granted a licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1965 could be called upon to apply anew for a fresh licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.3. The facts of this case briefly are that the petitioner-firm was originally constituted by one K.C. Mullick and P.N. Mullick. Both K.C. Mullick and P.N. Mullick were licensed to carry on business as Customs House Clearing Agents. Kishore Mullick being petitioner No. 2 was inducted into the firm. In 1979 an 'A' Class licence was granted to Kishore Mullick a copy...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Cal)20,[1994]208ITR465(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,64,631 and Rs. 4,84,205 as unexplained credits and interest thereon for the assessment years 1978-79/1979-80, respectively ?'Shortly stated the facts leading to this reference are that the assessee is Messrs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. and the assessment years involved are 1978-79 and 1979-80 for which the accounting periods ended on June 30, 1977, and June 30, 1978, respectively. The business of the assessee-company is loan financing. In the assessment for the assessment year 1978-79, there were two assessments under Section 144 due to non-compliance by the assessee but both the ex parte assessments were reopened under Section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »