Kolkata Court June 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. (Appeals), C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT350(Cal)
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. The order dated 27-5-1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 has been challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that this respondent did not take into account all the relevant factors while disposing of the petitioner's prayer for dispensing with the requirements of pre-deposit of the amount of the duty of the Central Excise in the seven appeals filed by the petitioner before him. It is on the following main consideration that the respondent No. 1 has declined to dispense with the pre-deposit of the amount of duty :'The ground that the appellant has a strong case is urged by every appellant and that is the reason why, based on their belief, they file an appeal. It is not a ground sufficient enough to grant waiver of pre-deposit unless, in addition, the appellant is able to establish that pre-deposit would cause undue hardship to them.'2. During the course of hearing today, the parties agreed that this petition may be finally disposed of today itself ...
Eldorado India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD18(Kol.)
1. As common facts and issues are involved for both the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, these two appeals filed by the assessee are being decided together for the sake of convenience.2. First three grounds of appeal in I.T.A. No. 2744 (Cal.) of 1992 for the assessment year 1986-87 are directed against the authorities below rejecting the contention of the assessee that the rental income should be assessed under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' and instead assessing the same under the head 'Income from house property'. The facts of the case as emerging from the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) are that during the year the assessee purchased premises No. 14, Alipore Park Road, Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 28,97,539. The assessee derived a small rent of Rs. 23,400 from these premises. It was contended by the assessee that this property had been purchased for further development by way of adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee could not have made...
Bikash Ch. Ghosh Vs. Dilip Kr. Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal363
1. This being a Second Appeal by the defendant-tenant is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 14, 1994 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 24 Parganas (South) in Title Appeal No. 73 of 1997 reversing the judgment and decree dated June 23, 1993 passed by the Munsiff, Second Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 132 of 1990. The appellant-tenant feels aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, whereby the plaintiff/owner-landlord has been granted of the decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of the tenanted premises for his own occupation. 2. The suit premises consisted of two self-containt flats, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor. The defendant-appellant was a tenant in the flat situated on the ground floor. The flat on the first floor was already in-occupation of the respondent-landlord. It may be added here that the respondent also was a tenant in respect of he flat on the first floor, but he subseq...
Rajkumar Chowdhury Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT242(HC)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. This is an application for setting aside the award dated 28th October, 1993 made and published by Shri Dharampal and Shri Hamza, Joint Arbitrators. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said award is based on proposition of law which is unsound. For proper appreciation of question involved it is necessary to mention the facts In short compass.2. Pursuant to an invitation for tender issued by the South-Eastern Railway for execution of left over work of earth work in formation, Pway linking including supplying, spreading and packing stone ballast, regarding of track, construction of signal cabins, pucca drain, barbed wire fancing, raising platform, walls ramp in connection with extension of loops to standard length 286 M at Garbeta Station on Adra-Nimpura Station, the petitioner submitted tender for the said work.3. The said tender of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent by its letter dated 5th October, 1990 whereby the petitioner was...
Smt. Surjit Kaur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(59)ECC71
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. The petitioner by reason of this application questions an order dated 25th November, 1996 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the properties of the petitioner were confiscated purported to be under the provision of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Shortly stated the fact of the matter is as follows:--The respondent No. 4 was detained by the respondent No. 1 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. In a proceeding initiated against the said respondent as well as the petitioner a truck bearing No. WBI-5562 was seized. The said truck, however, was released. Thereafter a confiscation proceeding was initiated in respect of the following properties:--A: Moveable Properties:--1. Truck No. WBI-5562 purchased in 1981at a cost of Rs. 30,000/ 2. 50% share in second hand truck bearingNo. NLH-1057, Model ...
Jagadish Chandra Halder Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT314(HC),1998LabIC1087
G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner who is a Superintending Engineer (Civil) under the respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC, for short) inter alla prays for quashing the Impugned order dated the 29th September, 1995 issued by the Director (HRD) of the Damodar Valley Corporation whereby the petitioner was denied promotion and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) although they were junior to the petitioner,--their position in the gradation list being 26 and 27 respectively as against the position of the petitioner at serial No. 25. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been unduly deprived of promotion and has been arbitrarily superseded by those who are Junior to him in the gradation list as stated above. The respondents, the DVC authorities however deny that there was any undue discrimination or arbitrariness in the matter.2. Section 60 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 empowers the...
Rampuria Industries and Investments Ltd. Vs. Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal366
ORDER1. By this motion the defendant has sought inter alia an order for return of the plaint filed in this suit and for stay of all proceedings until disposal on the ground that this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 2. The success or failure of the defendant on its motion really depends on the construction of the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970 ('the said Act' for short) for determining the question as to whether or not this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Suit. The relevant provisions of the said Act as amended by the 1974 Amendment Act are set out hereunder for convenience. '7. (vi) For recovery of possession of immovable property.-- In a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property from -- (a) a trespasser, where no declaration of title to property is either prayed for or necessary for disposal of the suit -- according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint subject to the prov...
Naina JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(59)ECC293
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J.1. This is a writ application praying for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, challenging the order of detention of Sri Nisit Jain, alias Bapi Jain, dated November 1, 1995, passed by Mr. K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), with a view to prevent him in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange, and on the strength of the said order, he was kept in custody in the Presidency Jail, Alipore, Calcutta. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows: The detenue was detained on March 26, 1997. The allegation on the basis of which the order of detention was passed and was detained was that information was received that Banwarilal Soni and Murarilal Soni, of 15, Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, ...
Plastic Concern Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Cal)87
ORDER--Assessment based on administrative direction of CommissionerRatio:As the assessing officer had merely followed the administrative direction of the revisional authority prior to passing of the assessment order and if there was any error in his order, in the given set of facts, it was the error of judgment on the part of the revisional authority himself and not that of the assessing officer, and also the assessing officer had caused certain enquiries, therefore, the Commissioner ought not to have exercised revisional jurisdiction to set aside the assessment order.Held:Admittedly, the assessing officer has discussed the issue with the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner to passing of the assessment order. The assessing officer has also recorded, in his confidential note, that the Commissioner of consented on the issue of passing the assessment order for the time being, subject to making further enquiry at a later period. In the instant case, the assessing officer has me...
Radharani Tea and Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD490(Kol.)
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 30-4-92 passed by Shri U. P.Singh, CIT(A)-XIV, Calcutta, in Appeal No. 3/19/CIT(A)-XIV/91-92.2. The issue involved here is, whether an assessee, who has changed the method of valuation of the closing stock, is also entitled to claim appropriate adjustment in the value of the opening stock on changed basis of valuation of closing stock.3. The assessee is engaged in the plantation and production of tea. It is regularly assessed to tax for last several years. For the purpose of accounts, it follows calendar year as the previous year and for our purpose the previous year starts from 1-1-1987 and ends on 31-12-1987.Until 31-12-1986 the assessee's closing stock of tea was valued on cost basis. In doing so, it was not including the element of depreciation, interest on Nabard Loan and also some other element of cost. However, while valuing the closing stock as on 31-12-87, the above three elements of expenditure were included in the closing stock. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »