Kolkata Court May 1997 Judgments
Bhag Chand JaIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD11(Kol.)
This appeal arises against the block assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, consequent to the search conducted on 8-8-1985.1. Vide Ground No. 1, assessee contends that the Assessing Officer is not correct including Rs. 64,636 as undisclosed income of the assessment year 1992-93 Ld. counsel submitted before us that the Income-tax return for the assessment year 1992-93 was belatedly filed on 14-2-1995 which was not taken into consideration. On the other hand, the ld. departmental representative submitted that the return of income for that year was not filed in time and so the income declared in the return was correctly treated as undisclosed income.2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, Sub-section (6) of section 158B defines 'undisclosed income'. It essentially includes income 'which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act'. In the instant case, assessee has filed acknowledgement of filing the return of income for...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal and Etc. Vs. the University of Calcutta and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Cal105
ORDERShyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. The aforementioned writ petitions were taken up together by consent of parties since common questions are involved. The writ petitioners have challenged the order of cancellation of admission to M.D. Course in the respective subjects in which they were admitted which was issued on 23-8-1993. The fact of such cancellation of admission was communicated by letter issued by the Secretary faculty council of P.G. Studies and medicine, nursing etc. dated 23-8-1993 which is contained in Annexure 'C' to the writ petitions. The writ petitioner Dr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal received the said letter of cancellation on 26-8-1993 and Dr. Adit Dey received it on 11th Sept. 1993. By letters dated 29-8-1993 and 12-9-1993 the petitioners duly protested against the said order of cancellation and demanded justice. However their representations remained unanswered.2. In September, 1993 the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions. An interim order was passed by me on 23rd Sept. 1993...
Tag this Judgment!Hum Boldt Wedag India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR845(Cal)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. It is on account of a palpable illegal action on the part of the respondents that the petitioners have been driven to this avoidable litigation. The facts in brief are that for the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioners filed their original return on June 27, 1984, declaring total income of Rs. 8,22,400. Subsequently, however, they filed a revised return on November 24, 1986, computing the total loss at Rs. 55,660. The main reason for filing the revised return was on account of the fact that the petitioners claimed to have received an amount of Rs. 8,52,000 as income on cash basis for engineering service rendered by the petitioners and the claim of the petitioners that this income of Rs. 8,52,000 should be included for the assessment year 1983-84, Since the petitioners wanted the inclusion of this income in assessment year 1983-84, they, as noticed above, filed the revised return showing a loss of Rs. 55,660 for the assessment year 1984-85 because the petitioners wan...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Asit Kumar Dasgupta, C.M.M.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT128(HC)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Contempt Rule issued by learned single Judge of this court. This appellant is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta. Before issuing the Contempt Rule, the learned single Judge also issued a show cause notice. The circumstances under which the said notice to show cause before issuing Contempt Rule was issued as appears from the said notice is set out hereinunder :'This is to record that sometime back in the last part of February this year between 16.2.96 and 23.2.96, Shri Asit Kumar Dasgupta, a member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, posted as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta while talking to me over phone at my chamber in a most objectionable, intemparate, annoying and insulting language criticised the move of the High Court and the order of the present Chief Justice calling for copies of Judgments delivered by him and few other members of the service for considering their eligibility for granting ext...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Ayodhyay Rai and anr. Vs. Calcutta Dock Labour Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT382(HC)
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. An order of suspension was passed on 16th April, 1993 by the respondents, whereby both the petitioners were placed under suspensions in exercise of the powers vested in the respondents under Clause 48(3) (a) of the Calcutta Dock Workers (regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1970 (1970 Scheme for short). The text of the suspension order reads as under:'With reference to charge-sheet No. LO/8AB/8/93 dated 16.4.1993, you are placed under suspension with immediate effect under Clause 48(3)(a) of the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1970, pending further orders.'2. Since a reference has been made to the charge-sheet dated 16.4.1993, it shall be worthwhile to reproduce the same. The text of the charge-sheet reads as under:'It has been reported that you have been sentenced to Rule 1 for life under Section 302/149 IPC by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, Bihar on 20.3.93;Your act, as above, amounts to misconduct.You a...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Shree Iswar Shiv Thakur and ors Vs. Amar Nath Daw and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT58(HC)
S. Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an order dated July 22, 1993 passed by a Single Bench of this court in O.S. Suit No. 135 of 1992, whereby an originating summons was dismissed upon a preliminary point without answering any of the questions raised therein.2. The impugned order is a short one and, therefore, for convenience's sake, the relevant extract of the said order needs be first set out as follows:-'Even if it is determined that the defendant No. 1 has no right to occupy the said premised, upon a true construction of the deeds in question yet in the exercise of the jurisdiction of giving answer to questions raised in an originating summons, this court would lack that power to pass a decree of eviction, which only can ultimately be completed redressal of the grievance of the plaintiffs in this O.S. Suit. A piecemeal determination of rights of alleged shebalts, trustees or secretaries in general should not be gone into, if it is found that such a determination would ...
Tag this Judgment!Baidyabati Sheorafuli Cooperative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT219(HC)
T. Chatterjee, J.1. This writ petition is moved with notice upon the respondents.2. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay has entered appearance on behalf of the Private Respondent No. 2, Kamta Prasad Singh. Mr. Dasgupta has appeared on behalf of the State-respondents.3. During the pendency of the writ application, a supplementary affidavit has been filed which shall be kept on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the respondents.4. By consent of parties, appearing before me this writ application is taken up for hearing.5. The writ petitioner No.l is a Cooperative Society duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, and the writ petitioner No.2 is a Chairman of the Board of Administrators of the Baldyabati Sheorafull Cooperative Bank Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Cooperative') who is also the writ petitioner No. 1 in this writ application. The respondent No.2 Sri. Kamta Prasad Singh applied for an overdraft loan of Rs. 90.000...
Tag this Judgment!Madhab Banerjee Vs. Dr. Dipak Chanda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3210
ORDERGitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this contempt application the applicant prays for action against the alleged contemnors on the allegation that the alleged contemnors have violated the order dated the 6th March, 1992 passed by Kalyamoy Ganguly. J. in the matter No. 617 of 1992 whereby the learned Judge rejected the writ petition filed by the concerned company, namely, the Indian Research Institute Limited of which the alleged Contemnor No. I was the Managing Director-cum-Chairman and the alleged contemnor No. 2 the Commercial-cum-Works Manager at the relevant time. The said company is stated to be a Joint Sector Company under the Government of West Bengal. The said writ petition was filed by the Company on being aggrieved by the order dated the 20th January, 1992 passed by the Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta declaring that the applicant-workman would get interim relief at the rate of Rs. 423 per month from 9-10-91. The applicant's grievance is that the Company has stopped...
Tag this Judgment!The Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jute Manufac ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(59)ECC92
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture of jute products from its jute Mills situated at 33, Narkeldanga Main Road, Calcutta.2. In this application the petitioner has for all intent and purport questioned the grant of subsidy under the External Market Assistance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as EMA) to the manufactures of jute twine as contradistinguished from jute yarn. The question which after a great deal of argument has been crystallised is as to whether jute yarn of more than one ply (such as 2-ply yarn or 3-ply yarn etc.) exported by the added respondents is jute yarn and, thus eligible to the benefit of EMA Certain other subsidiary questions have been raised in this application, namely, (1) whether the disputes sought to be raisd by the petitioner can appropriately be decided in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Costitution of India (2) whether the writ petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Mahananda Banerjee Vs. Hasim Abdul Halim, West Bengal Legistative Asse ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT39(HC),1997(2)CHN562,1997CriLJ3676
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The contempt application arises out of a judgment of a Division Bench comprising of G.N. Roy, J. (As His Lordship then was) and S.K. Hazari, J. passed in F.M.A. No. 197 of 1990.2. The said appeal was directed against the judgment dated 4th April, 1984 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in C.R. No. 6164(W) of 1981 dismissing the writ application of the petitioner.3. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute.4. The appellant was Assistant Secretary in the Secretariat of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. According to him, he was superseded in violation of the conditions of service, as a result whereof he was deprived of successive promotion to a higher post. The petitioner questioned a notification whereby the Hon'ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly was given the exclusive power to select any one from amongst his personal assistants or stenographers or Upper Division or Lower Division Assistant to act as his Private Secretary.5. The learned trial ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »