Kolkata Court February 1997 Judgments
Ravi Magor Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2886
Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.1. This appeal by accused-appellant Ravi Magor (alias-Rabi Bahadur, alias -- Rabi Bahadur Magor) is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 13-10-93 passed by the 14. Addl. Sessions Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, South 24 pgs., in Sessions Trial Nos. 5(7) of 1992, convicting the appellant for an offence under Section.392/397 1 .P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R. 1. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.d., to suffer R.I. for a further period of 4 months and also convicting him for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d., to suffer R.I. for a further period of 2 months, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.2. In the Trial Court, the present appellant and two others were charged for an offence under Section 392 read with Section. 397 of the IPC. An additional charge for an offence under Section 25(1...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Construction Development and Project Promotion Vs. Assistant Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: [1997]63ITD235(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri D. Manmohan, JM - This is an appeal filed at the instance of the assessee-firm and it relates to the assessment year 1991-92.2. As per the revised grounds of appeal, assessee raised three grounds which, in substance, relate to only one issue i.e., with regard to the justification in adding a sum of Rs. 3,51,877 under the head Income from other sources.3. Brief facts in this regard are as under : By virtue of an agreement between Burdwan Municipality and the assessee, construction of a market complex known as Fancy Market Complex at Tinkonia, G.T. Road, was undertaken by the assessee. As per the Balance-sheet of the assessee-firm, in the accounting year, relevant to the assessment year 1991-92, a sum of Rs. 3,04,570 was shown as the construction expenditure during that period. In the course of framing an assessment, Assessing Officer referred the matter to the valuation officer. As per the report of the Dist. valuation officer (DVO), the amount invested during the year was...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Machino Techno Sales (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)62ITD225(Kol.)
1. This appeal is instituted by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1986-87 and the only ground raised therein is that the CIT(A) erred in vacating the order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961, holding that the provisions of s. 44AB are complied with by filing of provisional audit report dt.30th July, 1986.2. During the assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings under s. 271B were initiated and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee. In response to that the assessee submitted that they have obtained the audit report as required under s. 44AB of the IT Act, 1961 on 30th July, 1986, i.e., within the time-limit. It was also explained that the statutory audit could not be completed within the time as voluminous work was involved and bank statement was not received in time. On verification the ITO found that the tax auditor has submitted his final report only on 29th September, 1986, though a provisional report was...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Promod Kumar Kishorepuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT220(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. The present appeal is directed against orders of learned single Judge, dated 12th and 17th March, 1996, in CO. No. 4794(W) of 1996. The appeal had been heard out by us on assignment on 10th of May, 1996 by the learned Chief Justice. The subject matter of challenge in the writ application is an order of detention, dated 15th of November against the petitioner. By the orders, impugned in the appeal, the learned single Judge, while dealing with the prayers for interim order, allowed the same until further orders, almost ex parte, as will appear from facts which follow, with liberty to the respondents to pray for vacation of the same upon notice and ultimately maintained the same by rejecting the prayer for recalling of the said orders by the appellants.2. In course of hearing of the appeal, consistently with the forensic diversity of the Counsel of the contesting parties, in-depth submissions were made, toughing the validity of the proceeding impugned in the w...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Machino Techno Sales (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Cal)214
ORDERR. ACHARYA, A.M. :This appeal is instituted by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1986-87 and the only ground raised therein is that the CIT(A) erred in vacating the order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961, holding that the provisions of s. 44AB are complied with by filing of provisional audit report dt. 30th July, 1986.2. During the assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings under s. 271B were initiated and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee. In response to that the assessee submitted that they have obtained the audit report as required under s. 44AB of the IT Act, 1961 on 30th July, 1986, i.e., within the time-limit. It was also explained that the statutory audit could not be completed within the time as voluminous work was involved and bank statement was not received in time. On verification the ITO found that the tax auditor has submitted his final report only on 29th September, 1986, though a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Kanoria Jute and Industries Limited and anr. Vs. Certificate Officer a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas330(Cal)
ORDERL.N. Ray, Chairman 1. The question involved in this application is whether in the given facts applicant No. 1-company is entitled to the protection of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short, Act of 1985), against proceedings for realisation of sales tax and interest thereon under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 1941'). The application is filed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, enacted under Article 323B of the Constitution of India, being one in the nature of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Applicant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having a jute mill at Sijberia in the district of Howrah. Applicant No. 2 is the managing director and a shareholder of the company. The case of applicant No. 1 is that on September 15, 1987, it was declared a sick company within the meaning of the Act of 1985. The Board fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kabir HossaIn Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT210(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Dr. Debi Pal appearing with Mr. Susanta Kr. Mukherjee, Mr. Asoke Banerjee and Mr. Faizul Islam and the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Subodh Ch. Ukil, Government Pleader appearing with Mrs. Bharati Mutsuddi and Mrs. Dipanwita Chaudhuri and the learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 7 to 18, Mr. Sundarananda Pal appearing with Mr. Bikash Kr. Mukherjee. Considered the materials on record.2. In this writ petition, one Kabir Hossain, erstwhile Sabhapati of Rampurhut-II Panchayet Samity, District-Birbhum, has challenged the requisition notice as in annexure 'B', page 46 to the writ petition, whereby a meeting was summoned for removal of the said Sabhapati from the post of Sabhapati. That is the impugned notice which has been challenged In this writ petition. Appearing for the petitioner, Dr. Pal, with all the force in his command, contended that the notice is bad, inasmuch as, the same has...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaggo Dhar Manna Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT380(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner Mr. Naren Debnath appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Neguive Ahmed and the learned Advocate for the Howrah Municipal Corporation Mrs. Smirta Kana Mukherjee. Considered the materials on record.2. The matter relates to the demolition of a building. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 177 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), a hearing was given to the petitioner as contained in the proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section 177 of the said Act. According to the petitioner, thereafter no order was passed or communicated to the petitioner, and according to Mr. Debnath, unless an order is passed and communicated the building cannot be demolished in exercise of power under Section 177 of the said Act.3. Mrs. Mukherjee, in order to establish that earlier the notice was given, relied on the notice dated 28.5.94 and for that she handed up ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajoy Kumar Virmani Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: 1999(106)ELT30(Cal)
Vinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. The learned Advocate for the parties agree that this Writ application be taken up on day's list and finally disposed of.2. In this Writ application the petitioner feels aggrieved of the order passed on March 14,1995 by a Division Bench of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, East Region Bench, in Appeal No. E. 131 of 1989. This appeal was preferred by the petitioner against an order passed on January 3, 1989 by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The Respondent No. 2 Tribunal before which the appeal was preferred initially passed an order directing the appellant to deposit a certain sum of money as a pre-condition for staying the order impugned in the appeal. However, because the deposit was not made despite the period prescribed, vide the impugned order passed on March 14, 1995 the appeal was dismissed.3. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.4. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal had passed an order grantin...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Krishna Gupta Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT1(HC),1997(2)CHN86,[1998]94CompCas247(Cal)
S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of Order No. 3, datedFebruary 17, 1994, passed by the learned Second Assistant District Judge, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 10 of 1994. By the impugned order, the learned judge, while issuing notice upon the present defendant/appellant, granted an interim order for maintenance of status quo on the basis of a prayer, made on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent, inter alia, seeking to restrain the defendant/appellant from disposing of, depleting, encumbering or dealing with the suit property. While disposing of an application for interim order, in connection with the present appeal, a Division Bench of this court permitted the appellant to realise the subsidy but directed that the realised amount be deposited in a nationalised bank and prevented the appellant from withdrawing the same without specific order from this court.2. Before us, in course of hearing of the present appeal, a preliminary objection was taken as to the jurisdiction of this co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »