Kolkata Court October 1997 Judgments

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)66ITD39Cal

1. These two cross-appeals are directed against the order of the CIT(A), Calcutta.2. As the issues are connected and relate to the same assessment year i.e., asst. yr. 1993-94, we take up for disposal of both the cases by a common order for the sake of convenience.3. In the assessee's appeal, the first ground pertains to the disallowance of depreciation on the cops purchased by the assessee-company. An additional ground was also raised before us in this connection. Ground No. 1 in the Departmental appeal is also connected, inasmuch as, the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) is challenged by the Revenue on the ground that depreciation cannot be allowed on the assets which are not used in the business of the assessee.4. The facts relevant to the aforesaid issue are as under. During the assessment year the assessee-company mainly carried on business in 5 major divisions i.e., (a) Coal Sale Division; (b) Produce Exchange Division; (c) Distillery Division; (d) Printing Division; and (e) ...

Karam Chand Thaper and Bros. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Cal)576

ORDERD. Manmohan, J.M.These two cross-appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XII, Calcutta.2. As the issues are connected and relate to the same assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1993-94, we take up for disposal of both the cases by a common order for the sake of convenience.3. In the assessee's appeal, the first ground pertains to the disallowance of depreciation on the Cops purchased by the assessee-company. An additional ground was also raised before us in this connection. Ground No. 1 in the departmental appeal is also connected, inasmuch as, the partial relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) is challenged by the revenue on the ground that depreciation cannot be allowed on the assets which are not used in the business of the assessee.4. The facts relevant to the aforesaid issue are as under. During the assessment year the assessee company mainly carried on business in 5 major divisions, ie.,(a) Coal Sale Division; (b) Produce Exchange Divisi...

Alexandros Dryron S.A. Vs. Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1998Cal142

ORDERRonojit Kumar Mitra, J.1. In an action in rem, in an admiralty matter, it was of course open to a plaintiff to seek to recover its alleged dues in respect to one vessel by causing another vessel to be arrested which either belonged to the same owner or a beneficial owner or one having control and possession of the arrested vessel. If both the vessels were owned by the same person, it was unlikely that the matter would come before the Courts. When the plaintiffs however, sought to establish and rely on beneficial ownership, or control and possession of the arrested vessel, intricate questions of interpretation, erudite deliberations by the Courts, public common law, provisions contained in international conventions and indeed the facts and circumstances of the case would become necessary to be considered, to decide the contentions of the parties. The exercise no doubt would, and in the instant case did, necessitate counsels for the parties, to resist the temptation of going on a pl...

Babu Chakraborty (In Jail) Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)2CALLT437(HC)

Sudhendu Nath Mallick, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant convict Babu Chakraborty (in Jail) against the Judgment, order of conviction and sentence dated 14.9.90/15.9.90 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1990 Sessions case No. 16 of 1990 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2(two and half) years. The grounds taken on the memo of appeal are that the findings of the trial court regarding the guilt of the appellant are based on conjectures and surmises, that the trial court has not taken into consideration the major contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence on the side of the prosecution regarding the search and seizure of the contravened articles, that the mandator...

Anup Kr. Ghosh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1998(59)ECC479

Satyabrata Sinha, J 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of Hebeas Corpus by quashing an order of detention passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary, Govt of India detaining him under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as 'COFEPOSA').2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts of the matter is as follows:--The petitioner was arrested on 8.8.1996 purported to be under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 when he had gone to the Calcutta Airport for obtaining a baggage booked in the name of Sri S. Chowdhury which, on suspicion having been opened, was found to be containing 21,000 wrist watches and some cycle parts. According to the petitioner he had travelled from Hongkong to Calcutta by Biman Bangladesh with one S. Chowdhury and the said baggage was missing and was registered as such. The said baggage having been found out ...

Anil Kumar Sanyal Vs. Jet Airways and Others

Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata

A.K. Bhattacharji, President: (1.) This is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner purchased a confirmed (O.K.) air ticket for travelling from Calcutta to Guwahati on 30.1.96 from 'Jet Airlines' (the opposite party No. 1). On his arrival to the Airport at the scheduled hour the petitioner found to his utter surprise and dismay that in spite of possessing an O.K. ticket he was not allowed to board the Aircraft by the officials of the O.P. On enquiry the petitioner was informed that accommodation was denied to him in the scheduled Flight No. 9W-611 on account of overbooking of passengers. The petitioner insisted that he should be allowed to avail the flight as he had an urgent assignment at Guwahati on the same day. But all his efforts were in vain and the Aircraft left leaving him at the Airport. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 who is the Airport Manager of the opposite party No. 1 handed over a letter to the petitioner allowing him hotel a...