Kolkata Court September 1995 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.
G.D. Agarwalla Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)59ITD230(Kol.)
1. Since both the appeals were heard together, they are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience. The facts are also identical.2. The appeals are directed against the orders of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act on 25-3-1991.3. The assessments were completed under Section 143(1) of the Act accepting the loss returned by the assessee. The CIT thereafter took proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and accordingly issued notices on 21-2-1991 proposing to revise the assessments, The notices which are more or less identical in both the cases are extracted below (only the relevant portion):- It appears that you are a partner of the firm M/s. Chitrakoot Projects. You had contributed a portion of land by way of your capital contribution to this firm. Although this land was purchased by you for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000, at the time of introduction of the land as your capital contribution, the value of your share of land was taken at Rs. 9 lakhs. It appears that a multi...
In Re: Amar Chand Baid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT314(HC),1997CriLJ867
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. This is an application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside of the order dated 18.8.95 passed by the Learned Executive Magistrate, Sealdah in M.P. Case No. 2217 of 1995 (Rajendra Prahladka v. Amar Chand Baid and Ors.] being annexure-'C to the petition. 2. Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the learned Executive Magistrate acted in excess of his jurisdiction in passing the said order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is the contention of Mr. Roy that while passing an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate must record his satisfaction on the basis of material on record about the breach of peace and about the necessity of maintaining peace when there is apprehension of nuisance and danger and that such order is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed or danger ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kanti Tarafdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC16,1997(91)ELT51(Cal)
Barin Ghosh, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Ajoy Nath Ray, J. dated 7th March, 1994 passed on a writ petition, where a writ of mandamus had been sought for release of the goods seized by the Customs Authorities and a writ of certiorary was prayed for quashing the show cause notice on the ground that the show cause notice was received by the writ petitioners after expiry of six months from the date of seizure.2. By the order the learned Judge directed the Appellants, Customs authorities, to return the seized goods to be respondents, writ, petitioners, within four weeks from the date of the order, and further directed that the show cause notice may be proceeded with, but only after return of the seized goods. The order further provided that the writ petitioners will be entitled to a hearing as provided by law and the proceedings shall be contained if, at all, in accordance with law and the writ petitioners will be entitled, if aggrieved, to move afresh against the order to be...
G. Artherton and Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Shri Abhijit Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT370(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. The present appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, in Misc. Case No. 55 of 1987, whereby the learned Assistant District Judge, rejected an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the appellant/judgment debtor. The ex parte decree is one for eviction.2. So far as the appellant's case is concerned, it is a case where the first limb for relief under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been sought to be invoked. The decree-holder/respondent, however, has pleaded disentitlement of the appellant to the relief claimed on the ground, as pleaded on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, relying upon the finding of the Trial Court about satisfactory service of summons and also on a technical ground of limitation by reference to the second limb of Article 123 of the Limitation Act. It has further been the plea of the decre-holder/respondent ...
Tapas Chowdhury Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ579
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention of one Shri Mukti Prasad Dutta passed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act, for short). The petitioner who is the son-in-law of the said Shri Mukti Prasad Dutta has filed this writ petition on behalf of the detenu. The order of detention was passed by the Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenu on 5th January, 1995. Pursuant to that order the detenu Shri Mukti Prasad Dutta was arrested on 11th January, 1995. The detention, as the order purportingly announces, was considered necessary with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods in future. The detenue is a partner of M/s. N. Dutta Agency holding customs house clearing agency license and he worked as the clearing agent of...
J. Tewari Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1995
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT467(HC),[1997]89CompCas415(Cal),[1997]225ITR858(Cal)
S.N. Chakrabarty, J.1. Criminal Revision No. 1287 of 1994 is directed against an order dated March 21, 1994, passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in Case No. C/992/30 under Section 276B, and 276B read with Section 278B on the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the learned magistrate directed that the case be proceeded against the secretary-accused, petitioner No. 2 only, as the case did not lie against accused No. 1-company, a juristic person.2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range 15, Calcutta, filed a petition of complaint against (1) Chem Crown India Limited and (2) J. Tewari, the secretary of the company, in which it was alleged that the company filed its return of income on July 31, 1987, for the assessment year 1987-88 and while scrutinising the details filed by the company along with the return it was observed from a perusal of annexure 'XVI' of the tax audit report dated July 28, 1987, that a tax of Rs. 85,045 was deducted under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, , 1...
Krishan Prasad Singhi and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer-ii (income-tax ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1995
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT115(HC),[1996]221ITR720(Cal)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioners who are trustees of a public charitable trust (in short, 'the petitioner-trust') have challenged an order of attachment against the shares owned by the petitioner-trust issued by the Tax Recovery Officer-II (Income-tax), Jaipur (in short, 'the TRO'), under Rule 26(1)(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act; 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for an alleged demand against a private trust known as Raja Baldeodas Birla Santatikosh Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the private trust'). The order of attachment is in respect of the shares of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. owned by the petitioner-trust and registered in the name of its trustees and lying in its possession at its office at Calcutta. The said shares were received by the petitioner-trust from another public charitable trust, namely, Birla Jan Kalyan Trust, which had in its turn received such shares from the private trust as donation. The other two trusts also fil...
Krishan Prasad Singhi and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1995
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Cal)154
SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, J. :In this writ application, the petitioners who are trustees of a public charitable trust (in short, 'the petitioner-trust') have challenged an order of attachment against the shares owned by the petitioner-trust issued by the Tax Recovery Officer-II (Income-tax), Jaipur (in short, 'the TRO'), under r. 26(1)(ii) of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for an alleged demand against a private trust known as Raja Baldeodas Birla Santatikosh Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the private trust'). The order of attachment is in respect of the shares of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. owned by the petitioner-trust and registered in the name of its trustees and lying in its possession at its office at Calcutta. The said shares were received by the petitioner-trust from another public charitable trust, namely, Birla Jan Kalyan Trust, which had in its turn received such shares from the private trust as donation. The other two trusts also filed the writ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›