Kolkata Court November 1995 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Lipton India Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)57ITD397(Kol.)
1. We are called upon by the revenue in this appeal to decide whether the Appellant Commissioner of Income-tax (A/C for short) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the interest under Section 244(1A) in respect of the excess amount from the date on which such amount was collected by the Assessing Officer by garnishee action under Sub-section (3) of Section 226 of the Act, the date on which the refund was granted and to pay the same to the assessee.2. Before embarking upon adjudication, the facts, as emerge from the case records, require to be narrated briefly as under : 3. The original assessment resulted in a demand of Rs. 3,13,58,962 and notice of demand, as required under Section 156 of the Act, dated 13th March, 1989 was served on the assessee-company on 12th April, 1989. In the said demand notice, the assessee was asked to pay the demand raised pursuant to the assessment within 30 days from the date of service of the said demand notice. The period of 30 days...
Tag this Judgment!Assam Brooke Ltd. Vs. Shasan Projects India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas665(Cal)
U.C. Banerjee, J.1. This application for stay is directed against theorder of the Company Law Board dated October 27, 1995, wherein theCompany Law Board directed the applicant before the Company Law Boardto lodge the share certificates being the subject-matter of the proceedingsalong with the transfer instruments by November 20, 1995, and alsodirected the company to register the shares by November 30, 1995. TheCompany Law Board went on to direct that in the event of failure on thepart of the company to effect registration in terms of the order, the BenchOfficer, Eastern Region, Calcutta, is directed to visit the registered officeof the company and to carry out suitable rectification in the register ofmembers in that regard. 2. It is this order which is said to be not in accordance with law and the intervention of the High Court has been sought for under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. Two principal issues have been raised before this court: the first being whether the Company L...
Tag this Judgment!Mantu Naik Vs. Bankim Chandra Maity and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT160(HC)
T. Chatterjee, J.1. Defendant No. 2 in a suit, filed againsl Sri Radhakrishan Giri of village Mozilapur, Post Office Dunki, District. Midnapore for eviction from a shop room at Cental by the plaintiff/ opposite party is the petitioner before me in this revisional application. The plain tiff/opposite party has brought the aforesaid ejectment suit against the petitioner and the said Radhakrishan Giri, defendant/opposite parly No. 2 in this revisional application in the first court of the Munslf at Contal, District Midnapore. In the aforesaid ejectment suit, although summons was served upon the opposite party No. 2 he did not enter appearance in the suit. His the petitioner who after entering appearance had filed two applications under section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act'} for determination of the arrears of rent payable by him to the plaintiff/ opposite party and on such determination suitable instalments be granted t...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Plywood and Saw Mill and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT287(HC)
Dipak Prakash Kundu, J.1. In this Writ petition the petitioners he prayed for, inter alia, a writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to cancel, rescind, withdraw and set aside the order dated 25-10-94 passed in Forest Case No. 9/COP 1994-95 by the respondent No. 3 and the said order under challenge has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'G'. 2. It is the case of the Writ petitioners that they are the partners of a partnership firm in the name and style 'M/s. B.N. Plywood and Saw Mill'. For running a Saw Mill the petitioners formed the aforesaid partnership firm and have installed necessary machines in the area where sufficient timbers are available for feeding Saw Mill. They made an application on March 1994 in the prescribed Form before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cooch Behar Division, Cooch Behar, for grant of necessary licence for running the said Saw Mill. For the purpose of deposit of application fee, the concerned authority is to pass necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lipton India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Cal)143
ORDERABDUL RAZACK, J. M. :We are called upon by the Revenue in this appeal to decide whether the Appellate CIT (A/C for short) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to compute the interest under s. 244(1A) in respect of the excess amount from the date on which such amount was collected by the AO by garnishee action under sub-s. (3) of s. 226 of the Act to the date on which the refund was granted and to pay the same to the assessee.2. Before embarking upon adjudication, the facts, as emerge from the case records, require to be narrated briefly as under.3. The original assessment resulted in a demand of Rs. 3,13,58,962 and notice of demand, as required under s. 156 of the Act, dt. 13th March, 1989, was served on the assessee-company on 12th April, 1989. In the said demand notice, the assessee was asked to pay the demand raised pursuant to the assessment within 30 days from the date of service of the said demand notice. The period of 30 days was to expire on 11th May, 1989...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT97(HC),1996(1)CHN9,[1996]217ITR871(Cal)
ORDER OF TRIBUNAL--Admission by assessee.Ratio :Tribunal's order vitiated and liable to be quashed where there was erroneous statement in the order of Tribunal that there had been admission by assessee without taking into account affidavit of assessee's counsel. Held :In the instant case, in the order under challenge the Tribunal affirmed the fact of the admission having been made by the assessee's counsel by believing the statement of the Department's Representative, Mr. M, who was not present when the said concession was made. The Tribunal also failed to consider the affidavit by the petitioner's counsel, overlooking that a counsel, who is also an officer of it, would not swear an affidavit without being fully and bona fide convinced about the correctness of the facts. Such finality, because of its far-reaching effect, must be reached by following a reasonably conscientious procedure seriously and not in a perfunctory, light or closed, manner. When the prejudice resulting therefrom i...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Construction and Projects Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas161(Cal)
Satya Brata Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to restore the three bank guarantees upon payment-back by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 of the sum received upon recovering the relevant debt entries in the account of the petitioner with defendant No. 2 forthwith.2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The petitioner obtained a purchase order from respondent No. 1, Steel Authority of India, on December 12, 1985, and for the purpose of execution of the said contract it received advances from the said respondent, upon furnishing three bank guarantees executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1, the details whereof are as follows :TABLEPurposeBank guarantees No. and dateAmount (Rs.)Initial period of validityExtended period1.Against 10% of supply value towards approval of GA drawings10/77, dated 1-7-198635,01,000October 24, 1987Sep...
Tag this Judgment!D.V.C. Canteen Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. the Damodar Valley Corporat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: 100CWN609,[1996(73)FLR1275],(1996)IILLJ36Cal
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Damodar Valley Corporation Workers' Unionand by the President and the Secretary of the said trade union. The petitioner No. 3 is also a workman of the D.V.C. Co-operative Stores and Canteen Ltd. (respondent No. 4). The petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union of the workers of the D.V.C. Co-operative Stores and Canteen situated in the Head Office premises of Damodar Valley Corporation 'at Calcutta. The writ petition has been filed on the contention that the employees of the D.V.C. Co-operative Stores and Canteen, listed in the chart annexure-A to the writ petition, are being given only consolidated monthly salary on no work no pay basis but they are entitled to get regular pay and other benefits like gratuity, pension, provident fund etc. like the other employees of the D.V.C. It is the contention of the petitioners that the canteen is actually run and controlled by the Damodar Valley Corporation (D.V.C.) th...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Dass Alias Daweed Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT215(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J. 1. By this appeal the accused appellant has challenged the judgment, conviction and sentence imposed against him for an offence under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for an offence under Section 324 IPC and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for another three months more. The sentences were directed to run concurrently by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1992 dated 31st July, 1995 which Sessions Case culminated into Sessions Trial No. 1 of June, 1995. 2. The fact silhouetted behind the actual incident as has been given through the prosecution witnesses by the prosecution is that P.W.1 A. Punnaiah is an encroacher of the Government land and he construction his own house on that land leaving a vacant space of land about 25 sq. ft. One of the co-villager Devda...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Dass @ Daweed Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1441
N.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. By this appeal the accused appellant has challenged the judgment, conviction and sentence imposed against him for an offence under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rupees 1,000/- for an offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for another three months more. The sentences were directed to run concurrently by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1992 dated 31st July, 1995 which Sessions Case culminated into Sessions Trial No. 1 of June, 1995.2. The fact silhouetted behind the actual incident as has been given through the prosecution witnesses by the prosecution is that P.W. 1 A. Punnaiah is an encroacher of the Government land he constructed his own house on that land leaving a vacant space of land about 25 sq. ft. One of the co-villagers Devdas alias D...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »