Kolkata Court December 1996 Judgments
H.M. Punwani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD203Cal
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92 is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Calcutta, dated 30-10-1995 whereby he partly allowed the assessee's appeal.2. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are that the assessee has 50% share in the building at 1/2, Allenby Road, Calcutta. The co-owners of the property were realising, apart from the rent for the building, also the hire charges for providing additional facilities to the tenants. The Assessing Officer included the said hire charges to the gross maintainable rent for arriving at the Net Maintainable Rent (in short, NMR) in order to make the valuation of the property. Aggrieved thereby the assessee preferred his first appeal before the CIT(A) who vide his impugned order repelled the assessee's contention that the hire charges were not includible in the rent inasmuch as the rent was assessed under the head 'Income from house property' whereas the amount of hire charges was assessed under the head 'I...
Tag this Judgment!Amritlal Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Cal)596
ORDERR. ACHARYA, A.M. :These appeals have been instituted by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1981-82 on different grounds.2. The appeals in ITA Nos. 551 & 552 (Cal) of 1990 were decided earlier by the Tribunal, B-Bench, Calcutta, vide order dt. 15th March, 1994 but when the assessee filed Misc. Appln. Nos. 60 & 61 (Cal) of 1994 in ITA Nos. 551 & 552 (Cal) of 1990, the orders of the Tribunal were recalled vide order in Misc. Appln. Nos. 60 & 61 (Cal) of 1994 in ITA Nos. 551 & 552 (Cal) of 1990 for the asst. yr. 1981-82 dt. 28th December, 1994. They are thus recalled appeals pending before us and the appeal in ITA No. 3912 (Cal) of 1992 is fresh one.3. This is a very peculiar case and the chronological history of the case with facts in brief is that in this case a search and seizure operation took place in the residential premises of the assessee on 25th May, 1981 and amongst others a bunch of loose papers marked as BM-5 was seized vide Annexure-'BM' Panch...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Engineering Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Pradip Kumar Sengupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT219(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. I had already heard the learned Advocates for the contending parties on the application filed by the applicants, Smt. Ira Basu and two others, for being added as proforma opposite parties in the instant revisional application on my taking up the matter for dictating the orders on the said application and perusing the records of the instant revisional application. I found that the instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated 22.9.94 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No. 70 of 1994 before him. While seeking to appreciate the scope of the instant revisional application for disposing of the applicants' aforesaid application I had scrutinised the record for finding out the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned order. But on scrutiny of the record it appeared to me that the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned order had not been annexed to the instant revisional application. No leave was sought fo...
Tag this Judgment!Soumen Kumar Ghosh and ors. Vs. Rajendra Kr. Bagaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT269(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. This Revisional Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) is directed by the plaintiffs petitioners (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) against the Order dated 17th July, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court at Sealdah, in title suit No. 58 of 1983 before him, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.2. By the aforesaid Impugned Order (dated 17.7.89) the learned Munsif has disposed of the application filed by defendant No. 1 under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) in terms thereof, holding that the said application has been filed In time, and that nothing Is due to plaintiffs by the defendant towards rents for the suit premises, signifying that there was no default on the part of the defendants In paying rents in respect of the suit premises.3. The impugned order Is challenged by the plaintiffs mainly on the grounds that (i) the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Ltd. Vs. Suptd. of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(94)ELT45(Cal)
Surya Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision Nos. 1083/96, 1084 of 1996, 1085 of 1996, 1086 of 1996 and 1087 of 1996.2. The petitioner M/s. Bata India Ltd., is being prosecuted under Section 9 of the Central Excises & Salt Act for evasion of Central Excise Duty between 1-1-1980 and 31-12-1979. The following complaint cases have been launched against the present petitioner :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------SI. Details of Complaint Period coveredNo.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------(i) Complaint in case No. C-3380/87 1-1-1980 to 31-12-1980(ii) Complaint in case No. C-3380(A)/87 1-1-1981 to 18-5-1981(iii) Complaint in case No. C-3381/87 1-1-1979 to 31-12-1979(iv) Complaint in case No. C-3382/87 1-1-1978 to 31-12-1978(v) Complaint in case No. C-3383/87 1-1-1977 to 31-12-1977(vi) Complaint in case No. C-3384/87 30-8-1976 to 31-12-1976.-----------------------...
Tag this Judgment!South Calcutta Hawkers Association Vs. Government of West Bengal and O ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal234,(1997)1CALLT453(HC)
1. This is an appeal along with an application for stay and/or interim order against the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 1996 passed by the learned trial Judge in CO. No. I8375(W) of 1996 by the writ petitioners/appellants, whose writ petition was rejected summarily as similar writ petition has been disposed of by another learned single Judge of this Court in respect of writ petition filed by some other hawkers' Association which was disposed of by V. K. Gupta, J. of this Hon'ble Court.2. The facts are not in dispute that the City of Calcutta for several years, the StateGovernment and the Municipal authorities have allowed hawkers not only to squat, but also to make unauthorised and illegal construction on the footpath and roads in gross violation of all Rules and Regulations and that several Hawkers Unions have been formed under the umbrella of some political parties to protect rights and interests of those hawkers. In 1985 a writ petition was filed by some of the hawkers in Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Puspa Mondal Vs. Nirmala Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC222
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against Order No. 30 dated 29th June, 1994 passed by the District Judge. Howrah on an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. allowing the opposite party to be imuleaded in the Misc. Case 12/92.2. The revisionist was married to Dr. Dhaneswar Mondal in 1965 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. A female child was born to them out of their lawfull wed-lock being Shyamali by name. It is stated by the petitioner that she had been living with her husband Dr. Dhaneswar Mondal at all the material time. On 6th January, 1990, Dr. Dhaneswar Mondal (since deceased), is said to have assaulted the petitioner and forcibly driven her from the matrimonial house and sent her to mother's place. From then on the petitioner continued to reside until December, 1991, when her husband expressed his contrition for his misbehaviour, brought the petitioner back from her mother's place and thereafter both the spouses resumed their conjugal rela...
Tag this Judgment!The State of West Bengal Vs. Nebulal Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT302(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J. 1. The taste of the pudding is in the eating. The propriety of a judicial order or the judgment is, therefore, to be tested in the light of the law and fact. It is the judicial seal which makes an order or judgment sacrosanct. Following from the above concept, the application of judicial mind is the pole star to determine its objectivity. 2. The prosecuting agency has widely challenged the impugned order of bail granted to Nebulal which suffered rejections by the High Court from time to time by different Benches. Ultimately, Nebulal was admitted to bail by the Division Bench on certain conditions that pushed the prosecuting agency to the apex court where it challenged the viability of bail. The apex court, upon hearing the parties, transmitted the case for consideration of bail in accordance with law. The learned Public Prosecutor became very much sore over the granting of bail dated 28.3.96. In the context, the prayer for cancellation of bail has been lit up by...
Tag this Judgment!Promode Kr. Banerjee and anr. Vs. Anusuya Dhiraj Lal Kamakia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT523(HC)
Sudhendu Nath Mallick, J. 1. The instant revisional application is directed at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner-decree-holders against the Order No. 230 dated 31.8.91 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 4th court, Alipore, District 24 Parganas(south) in Misc. case No. 69 of 1978 arising out of the title suit No. 243 of 1973 renumbered as T.S. No. 111 of 1973. The admitted facts are as follows:-- The suit was decreed ex parte on 7.8.78 by the trial court after rejecting an application for adjournment filed by the Op-defendant but not moved. Thereafter the petitioners put the ex parte decree into execution in Title Execution Case No. 14 of 1978. It is also admitted that the petitioners were resisted in the matter of taking delivery of possession for which the police help was prayed for and ultimately possession in respect of the suit premises through police help was delivered to the petitioners in the above execution proceeding on 14th February, 1979. In the mean time...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Pankaj V. Sheth
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: 1997LC519(Calcutta),1997(90)ELT31(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The basic issue involved in this appeal is whether the customs authorities have the right to refuse to endorse the exports made by an Exporter in the DEEC Book of export Part II after the export is effected by the Exporter.2. The writ petitioner had exported plastic Flat Jet Nozzles made from HDPE Granules on 7th January, 1994 to a purchaser at Singapore. The FOB value of the Nozzles was declared as Rs. 48,46,850/-. The goods were examined by the Appraising Department of the Customs. Samples were drawn by them to verify the value of the Nozzles. The goods were suspected of being over invoiced. Pending enquiry the export was allowed provisionally against a bond. Assessment was made provisionally and an endorsement was made on the Shipping bill to this effect by the Customs Authorities. The Customs Authorities however refused to endorse the fact of export in Part II of the DEEC book of the writ petitioner. Unless the Customs Authorities make such endorsement the writ petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »