Kolkata Court March 1994 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. I.O.L. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)50ITD214(Kol.)

1. The revenue has instituted these appeals against the order of CIT(A) for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and the only ground of appeal raised therein is as under : That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that charging of interest under Section 139(8) is misconstrued and accordingly the rectification order for the assessment year 1984-85 is quashed and in that view deleting the interest under Section 139(8) for Rs. 42,950 for the assessment year 1984-85. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that charging of interest under Section 139(8) is misconstrued and accordingly the rectification order for the assessment year 1985-86 are quashed and in that view deleting the interest under Section 139(8) for Rs. 36,611 for assessment year 1985-86.2. Since common grounds and similar issues are involved in both the appeals the...

Bagree Estates(P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Cal)588

ORDERP. PRADHAN, A. M. :This appeal is by the assessee against the CIT(A)s order dt. 29th Dec., 1989 for the asst. yr. 1985-86.2. The only issue in the present appeal is regarding non-allowance of deduction to the assessee on account of various service charges incurred by it from gross rental income. The Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed the service charges as claimed by the assessee on the ground that no amount has been received separately towards service charges provided by the assessee from the tenants. He has also observed that deduction from the property income can only be allowed as provided for in ss. 22 to 27 of the IT Act. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) has confirmed the finding of the AO and, hence, the present appeal is filed by the assessee to the Tribunal.3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned authorised representative of the assessee submitted that the authorities are not justified in disallowing service charges claimed by the assessee. In t...

Amitabha Ghosh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 98CWN808,I(1994)DMC638

M.G. Mukherjee, J.1. This is a revisional application filed by the husband petitioner impugning an order No. 8 dated 2-2-94 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Second Court at Alipore South 24 Parganas (S) in Matrimonial Suit No, 53 of 1993 whereby the learned Trial Judge refused to pass an order straightway on a joint petition filed by both the husband and wife under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for dissolution of marriage between the parties on mutual consent. The learned Trial Judge was of the view that a date has to be fixed after six months, from the date of filing of the application since it is a suit for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and accordingly fixed 3rd August, 1994 for hearing of the petition and for passing appropriate orders.2. The wife opposite party entered appearance in the matter and submitted inter alia through her learned Advocate that since she was a party to the joint petition f...

Malaykumar Banerjee Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1995Cal126

ORDER1. This Civil Order arises out of an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 1991 dated 18th May, 1992 affirming the order passed by the-Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur in Eviction Case No. E/80/90/1-III under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.2. The petitioner was given licence by South Eastern Railway through the office of the Chief Hospital Superintendent and Local Health Authority, Kharagpur to manufacture, stock, distribute and exhibit for sale tea, snacks, sweets, meals and other edible foods subject to the conditions as specified under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 at Main S.E. Railway Hospital, Kharagpur, Dist. Midnapore from 1st January, 1988 to 31st December, 1988 (vide Annexure 'A' to the writ petition). The petitioner renewed the licence from time to time and deposited requisite fee etc. and carried on his work withou...

Arjun Kumar Biswas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)2CALLT173(HC)

Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. The petitioner, who was a Constable in the Railway Protection Force of Eastern Railway, has challenged in this writ application the disciplinary proceeding culminating into the order of removal from service passed on 9th March, 1989. He has also challenged the appellate order dated 3rd January, 1990 rejecting the appeal and the revision preferred by him. It may be mentioned that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11th May, 1988 and the suspension was not revoked and continued till the order of removal from service was passed on 9j3.1989. The charge against the petitioner is as follows :-'Charge-For gross neglect of duty in that while he Was detailed for T.A. and guarding Malkhana duly from October (sic) to 8-00 of 11.5.88 was found in deep sleep about 21 hours by HE/146C P. N. Sharma who in course of his round visited and checked hazat room and found the four accused persons had managed to run away by breaking open the door of hazat room'.2. The Enq...

Provat Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Gita Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 98CWN1133,II(1994)DMC248

S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 1993, by the ld. Additional District Judge, dismissing the reliefs of the husband-petitioner sought for within the fold of Sections 12(1)(c) & 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The factual exposure of the case reflects the pathos of the matrimonial life of both the spouses, an account of which has been well detailed in the judgment. But for appreciation of the points canvassed, we give a brief 'resume' of the facts.3. The petitioner and the respondent, a destitute, were married according to Hindu Rites on 13.8.1982, under strained circumstances as consent of the petitioner was procured of having recourse to fraud of which Tapan was the author who was aided by the common friends in perpetrating such fraud on the petitioner. He was not only prevailed upon by them but was also caught up with fear psychosis which dominated the consent for such marriage. However, no c...

Provat Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Sm. Gita Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)2CALLT53(HC)

Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 1993, by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the reliefs of the husband-petitioner sought for within the fold of Sections- 12(1)(c) & 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The factual exposure of the case reflects the pathos of the matrimonial life of both the spouses, an account of which has been well detailed in the judgment. But for appreciation of the points canvassed, we give a brief 'resume' of the facts :3. The petitioner and the respondent, a destitute, were married according to Hindu Rites on 13-8-1982, under strained circumstances as consent of the petitioner was procured of having recourse to fraud of which Tapan was the author who was aided by the common friends in perpetrating such fraud on the petitioner. He was not only prevailed upon by them but was also caught up with fear psychosis which dominated the consent for such marriage. How...

Malay Kumar Banerjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1994)2CALLT100(HC)

Nisith Kumar Batabyal, J.1. This Civil Order arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 1991 dated 18th May, 1992, affirming the order passed by the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur in Eviction Case No. E/80/90/I-III under section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.2. The petitioner was given licence by South Eastern Railway through the office of the Chief Hospital Superintendent and Local Health Authority, Kharagpur to manufacture, stock, distribute and exhibit for sale tea, snacks, sweets, meals and other edible foods subject to the conditions as specified under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 at Main S.E. Railway Hospital, Kharagpur, Dist. Midnapore from 1st January, 1988 to 31st December, 1988, (vide Annexure 'A' to the writ petition). The petitioner renewed the licence from time to time and deposited requisite fees etc. and ...

Smt. Avarani Sinha Vs. State of W.B. and Others

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1994Cal222

ORDER1. By a resolution of the S.T.A., West Bengal as communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 31-12-93 which is Annexure-F to the writ application, the petitioner's prayer for temporary stage carriage permit on the route Itaberia to Howrah Railway Station was rejected on the ground that the 'main alignment of the route coincided with the Calcutla-Digha route which was a notified route and no ground for temporary permit was felt'. Being aggrieved by the said resolution the petitioner has moved this Court for appropriate relief under Article 226. Earlier under a resolution of the S.T.A. dated 28-8-92 the petitioner was granted temporary permit on the said route Howrah-Itaberia via, Patashpur, Amarshi, Bhagabanpur, Bajkul, Narghat and Mechada (vide Annexure-A). That temporary permit was granted for 17 weeks. In the said resolution of the S.T.A. it was recorded that it had been stated that there was no direct transport communication from Itaberia to Calcutta and the poor villager...

CalvIn KleIn Inc. Vs. International Apparel Syndicate

Court: Kolkata

Ruma Pal, J. 1. The Court : The petitioner is a Company incorporated in America. It gets its name from its promoter Calvin Klein. Calvin Klein is a resident of America. He is a fashion designer. Before the petitioner was incorporated Mr. Klein designed and sold men's and women's apparel and accessories under the mark Calvin klein or CK. Mr. klein had started his business of tailoring and designing in 1968 using his name Calvin Klein or CK as his trade label. The petitioner company now carries on the same and other business as the owner of 'Calvin Klein' and 'CK'. The range of business includes perfumes, toiletry & optical glasses. Goods bearing the name Calvin Klein or CK have been sold by the petitioner or its predecessor-in-interest throughout the world but not in India. The products bearing the trade mark Clavin Klein & CK have been advertised in diverse magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, New York Times particularly with regard to denim wear such as jeans, jackets, shirts, skirt...