Kolkata Court October 1995 Judgments
Collr. of Cus. Vs. Narayani Trading Concern (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1997(89)ELT668(Cal)
K.C. Agarwal, C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition of M/s. Narayani Trading Concern (Private) Limited by issuing Writ of Mandamus for returning the Poppy Seeds imported from Pakistan through the Calcutta Port is transit to Nepal.2. The respondent was engaged in importation of various goods for consumption in Nepal. In that connection it imported 32 Metric Tonnes of White Poppy Seeds in 458 bags at Kathmandu, Nepal through the Calcutta Port in transit to Birganj. Invoice necessary for that purpose was accordingly raised and the said goods were shipped to Calcutta by M.V. Eagle Moon Breeze under Bill of Lading No. 5699581, dated 30th June, 1994.3. On 6th December, 1991 a 'TREATY OF TRANSIT between HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL and GOVERNMENT OF INDIA' was entered into. That Treaty was animated by the desire to maintain, develop and strengthen the existing friendly relations and co-operation between the two cou...
Tag this Judgment!Rup Chand JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(88)ELT335(Cal)
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of Rup Chand Jain (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') against the order of the Collector of Customs. Originally, one question, was referred namely the following :-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 as applied by the Tribunal in the instant case is available to the department in view of the fact that at the time of hearing the case, the diamonds were not in the list of 'Notified Items'?2. Thereafter upon the application of the petitioner the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer following, two questions, by its Order dated 18-8-1995 :-1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the diamonds in question are not smuggled goods and whether the findings of the Tribunal in this regard is perverse? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal w...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra S. Chowdhury Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-26-1995
Reported in: (1996)57ITD239(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal instituted by the assessee on the following grounds: (1) The Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal. (2) The Id. CIT (Appeals) erred in observing that the claim of the assessee was that the interest on money borrowed for the purpose of making investment in shares should be allowed against income from shares in partnership firms or against interest income assessed under the head "Other sources". The claim of the assessee, on the other hand, was that interest paid on borrowed money which was utilised for the purpose of purchasing shares should be allowed against dividend income and that in the absence of any positive dividend income, the interest so allowed would become a loss under that head, which could be set off against incomes of the assessee, assessable under other heads of income including business. (3) The Ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the case made out in the ground of appeal before him as also in the assessee's letter dated 5-...
Tag this Judgment!B.F. Goodrich Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)57ITD309(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee, a company, for the assessment year 1985-86 against the order of the CIT(A)-X, Calcutta, dated 26-10-1990.2. The assessee is a non-resident company. On 10-9-1985, a return of income was filed for the assessment year 1985-86 signed by Sri J.D. Ong in his capacity as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.The Assessing Officer having found that the signature in the verification of the return is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 140(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, treated the return as "invalid return". As the return of income filed by the assessee consists of taxable income, a notice was issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the I.T. Act and accordingly by his letter dated 9-11-1987, the Assessing Officer wrote to the appellant explaining the reasons for re-opening of the assessment. The contents of the letter are as under :-- On verification of the return for the assessment year 1985-86 filed by you on 10-9-1985, it i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›