Kolkata Court November 1996 Judgments
Ashoke Kumar Parasramka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Cal)156
ORDERR. V. EASWAR, J.M. :This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act on 29th March, 1996.2. In the assessment made under s. 143(3) on 29th January, 1996, the ITO referred to the assessees explanation with regard to the speculative transactions in shares. He also referred to the statement of speculation profits/losses in shares during the period from 1st April, 1992, to 31st March, 1993, which was filed by the assessee in response to his enquiry. It has to be stated here that there was a search in the premises of the assessee wherein certain papers were seized. One such seized document is referred to as AP-2. This paper showed details of certain shares purchased and sold by the assessee as well as family members. It also showed certain other share transactions in shares between the assessee and Magnum Investments of Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta. By letter dt. 9th October, 1995, the AO called upon the assessee to explain the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Harbhajan Singh Kaur Vs. Unimode Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT414(HC)
Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, J.1. The present revisional application is directed against order No. 6 dated 11.10.96 passed by the 2nd Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta in T.S. No. 2831 of 1996. At the motion stage a debate has cropped up as to the maintainability of the revisional application against the impugned order and the court has given its anxious consideration after giving due hearing to both the parties at length about the maintainability of the revisional application.2. This court has been apprised that this point has not been thrashed before as it relates to the impugned order arising out of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which came into effect on 25.1.96. As such, it has been a common submission of both the parties that the said Act will apply and the provisions of the same will govern the proceedings including interim proceedings. Section 85 of the said Act provides for repealing provisions and it has been specified there that the Arbitration Act of 1940 will st...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD275Cal
1. The only issue in this appeal by the assessee is whether the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs spent by the assessee on the cost of sculpture installed in the city of Calcutta is deductible as expenditure on advertisement, publicity and propaganda.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of medicines. One of the products is "Boroline" which is a well-known medicated cream, very popular in the country. The assessee has been manufacturing the same for many decades. Substantial amounts were spent by the assessee on popularising the medicines manufactured by it including the famous Boroline. During the relevant year, as part of the propaganda and publicity programme in respect of Boroline, the assessee engaged a popular artist by name Smt. Sanu Lahiri of Calcutta for the purpose of sculpting a status for installation of the same at the intersection of the Park Circus and the Eastern Metropolitan Bypass.There is a traffic island at the inter-section in which the statue wa...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Raja Reddy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal192,(1997)1CALLT387(HC)
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ application, inter alia, praying for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to carry on his business of tuck shop pursuant to the agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. A copy of the said agreement has been produced before this Court. The petitioner was permitted to run a Tuck Shop on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Interms of the aforementioned agreement, the price of the articles which are to be sold had been fixed. Clause 13 of the said agreement states that in the matters of dispute the Principal's decision will be final and binding on the contractor. In terms of Clause 3 of the said agreement the petitioner was prohibited from making any permanent structure even at his cost except with the written approval of the Principal.On or about 27-9-1994 a Circular was issued calling upon the members of the staff to give their opinion in writing a...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Beverages Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR317(Cal)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. The order dated December 13, 1995, purported to have been passed under Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by respondent No. 1, is under challenge in this petition. Under this order, the statement furnished by the petitioner in Form No. 37-I was not found valid and legal in the eyes of law by respondent No. 1 and as such it was decided that such a statement could not be acted upon by that authority with all adverse consequences that would follow against the petitioner. Initially, there was some dispute regarding the purported exercise of the power under which the impugned order dated December 13, 1995, was passed by respondent No. 1. Initially, it was made out that such order was passed under Section 269UC(3) of the Income-tax Act, but this mistake was ultimately rectified by respondent No. 1, vide its communication dated February 7, 1996. The dispute regarding mentioning of the section under which the order was passed or its subsequent rectification is not rele...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Beverages Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Cal)202
V. K. GUPTA, J. :The order dt. 13th December, 1995, purported to have been passed under s. 269UC of the IT Act, 1961, by respondent No. 1 is under challenge in this petition. Under this order, the statement furnished by the petitioner in Form No. 37-I was not found valid and legal in the eyes of law by respondent No. 1 and as such it was decided that such a statement could not be acted upon by that authority with all adverse consequences that would follow against the petitioner. Initially, there was some dispute regarding the purported exercise of the power under which the impugned order dt. 13th December, 1995, was passed by respondent No. 1. Initially, it was made out that such order was passed under s. 269UC(3) of the IT Act, but this mistake was ultimately rectified by respondent No. 1, vide its communication dt. 7th February, 1996. The dispute regarding mentioning of the section under which the order was passed or its subsequent rectification is not relevant or material for the di...
Tag this Judgment!Kuchil Kumar Nandi Vs. Modi Cement Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ805
ORDERAsish Baran Mukherjee, J.1. Three revisional applications, all preferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. being Criminal Revision Nos. 2302 of 1995,2303 of 1995 and 2304 of 1995 have been heard together. These revisional applications arises out of complaint case Nos. C-1695 of 1994.C-1699 of 1994 and C-1694 of 1994, all pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta.2. The petitioner in all the three revisional applications figured as accused in a case under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act started at the instance of the opposite party in all the revisional applications. The allegations against the present petitioner in the three criminal cases in short is that the cheques issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant company on different dates for different sums being dues on account of business transaction between the parties were dishonoured by the concerned Bank when presented by the complainant O. P. on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti Commerce Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD183Cal
1. These two cross appeals were directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VII, Calcutta and they relate to the assessment year 1989-90.The issue involved in the assessee's appeal as well as in the department's appeal is common and so we proceed to dispose of the appeals together, for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a company earning interest income and also income from hire charges of trailors and trucks. The assessee was consistently following the mercantile system of accounting. The accounting year in the immediately preceding assessment year ended on 30-6-1987.3. For the assessment year 1989-90, in view of the change in the law, the assessee-company had closed its books of account on 31-3-1989 and the aforesaid previous year consisted of 21 months. As per the system hitherto followed by the assessee, the books of accounts were closed as on 30-6-1988 (i.e., from 1-7-1987). Due to change in the previous year the books of accounts were ultimately closed on 31-3-1989. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Biseswar Patwari Vs. Smt. Labu Bala Patwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT111(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against order No. 50 dated 17.2.93 passed by the learned First Assistant District Judge at Barasat in T.S. Case No. 103 of 1990. Before I embark on an enquiry to examine the viability and the potentiality of the claim, a few questions may be posed up in this case for disposal of the revisional application. 2. Can a competent court of law decide a question afresh when decided once? Can a cause of action which is not recurring survives after a decision rendered by a court of law? Can there be any immortality of the proceedings within the realm of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principle analogous thereto? 3. In the perspective of the above question it is found that the court has been often tortured and tormented by the parties to decide an issue which has already been disposed of by a court of law. The court has always answered the question in the negative that the court is divested of jurisdiction to d...
Tag this Judgment!Ritu Mineral Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(95)ELT170(Cal)
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. Against an order passed by the respondent No. 1 the petitioners preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3. Since the order appealed against by the petitioners before respondent No. 3 included the levy of penalty against them, in the appeal preferred by them they made an application under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the penalty amount levied by the respondent No. 1. By an order passed on 25-7-1996 the respondent No. 3 while partly allowing the prayer of the petitioners for dispensing with the requirement of the deposit of the penalty amount directed them to deposit only 25% of the penalty amount within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. The petitioners feel aggrieved of this direction and have accordingly challenged the order before this Court.2. After hearing the learned Counsel of both the parties and perusing the record, I find that under Section 129E of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›