Kolkata Court September 1998 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.
Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR567(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), by respondent No. 1 and has prayed that the notice be quashed and no steps be taken further for reassessment in pursuance of the impugned notice dated September 30, 1997, issued under Section 148 of the said Act.2. The writ petitioner isa public limited company and derives its income from the business of growing and manufacturing tea in India, manufacturing chemicals and fertilisers and manufacturing plywoood, shipping and warehousing. For the assessment year 1990-91, the accounting period ending on March 31, 1990, the petitioner filed a return along with the tax audit report and claimed deduction under Section 32AB(5) of the said Act. The assessment was completed on March 22, 1993, under Section 143(3) of the said Act and the Assessing Officer determined the income chargeable to tax under the Act from growing a...
Workmen Represented by Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. and Its Group (Calcutt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR47],(1999)ILLJ1182Cal
ORDERSatya Brata Sinha, J.1. This application is directed against an award dated November 14, 1996 passed by Mr. S.K. Banerjee, 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-212/1993 whereby and whereunder he passed an award against the petitioner union in favour of the Management. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow campus.2. On September 18, 1989 an agreement for payment of wages was arrived at with Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. (Calcutta Branch) Employees' Union and the management which became effective from January, 1987 to December, 1990. The members of the petitioner union who are members of the first union came out thereof and started a separate union in the year 1990. The petitioner contends that the aforementioned agreement dated September 18, 1989 is not a Tripartite nor Bipartite settlement as it does not conform to the Rule 68 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. The petitioner union raised an industrial dispute as regards the said settlement pursuant whereto c...
Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN508(Cal)
1. The Court, by this writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), by the respondent No. 1 and has prayed that the Notice be quashed and no steps be taken further for reassessment in pursuance to the impugned Notice dated 30-9-1997, issued under section 148.2. The writ petitioner is a pubic limited company and derives its income from the business of growing and manufacturing tea in India, manufacturing chemicals and fertilisers and manufacturing plywood, shipping and warehousing. For the assessment year 1990-9 1, the accounting period ending on 31-3-1990, the petitioner filed return along with Tax Audit Report and claimed deduction under section 32AB(5) of the Act. The assessment was completed on 22-3-1993, under section 143(3) of the Act and the assessing officer determined the income chargeable to tax under the Act from growing and manufacturing of tea in India, being 40 per cent at ...
Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Cal)193
Y.R. Meena, J.By this writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the respondent No. 1 and has prayed that the notice be quashed and no steps be taken further for reassessment in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 30-9-1997, issued under section 148.2. The writ petitioner is a pubic limited company and derives its income from the business of growing and manufacturing tea in India, manufacturing chemicals and fertilisers and manufacturing plywood, shipping and warehousing. For the assessment year 1990-91, the accounting period ending on 31-3-1990, the petitioner filed return along with tax audit report and claimed deduction under section 32AB(5) of the said Act. The assessment was completed on 22-3-1993, under section 143(3) of the Act and the assessing officer determined the income chargeable to tax under the Act from growing and manufacturing of tea in India, being 40 per cent...
Goutam Roy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR1010(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated February 17, 1995, and prayed that the same be quashed.2. The petitioner is a regular assessee since the assessment year 1971-72 and he submitted his income-tax returns regularly. There was a search on June 29, 1983, at the residence of the petitioner. In the assessments for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, the income shown by the assessee has not been accepted and on the basis of the seized materials the income assessed for 1983-84 was Rs. 4,18,877 and for 1984-85 it was Rs. 1,33,432. The petitioner has challenged the search which was conducted by the Department, but this court has upheld the action of the Department and the search conducted at the premises of the petitioner. In the demand notice, the Assessing Officer has attached the rent of the building of the assessee for recovery of tax relevant to the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1990-91 and 1991-92.3. The case of the petitioner i...
Baidyananda Mahato and anr. Vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT85(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Whether deposit of fee after a plan is passed within a reasonable time entitles the Howrah Municipal Corporation to cancel the said plan is the question involved in this application.2. The admitted facts are :-3. The petitioners are owners of 2 Cottahs 8 Chhitacks of land being Holding No. 26, Kumar Rameswar Malta 1st Bye Lane, Kalabibir Bagan Howrah. The said land was purchased by them by reason of a deed of transfer executed on 22nd December, 1964. The petitioners have been paying tax in relation to the said holding. A building plan was submitted on 25.5.1984 in relation whereto a case being No. BR-326/84-85 was registered by the Building Committee.4. On or about 8th June, 1984 the Building Committee recommended for sanction of plan on payment of sanction fee of Rs. 4,500 subject to :-(i) colouring the holding boundary by red dotted line. (ii) drawing up the site plan property with 40' ft. surrounding holdingnos. (iii) approval of D.E regarding design (load calcula...
Sri Gopeswar Mondal and ors. Vs. Ambika Charan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT302(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J.1. This second appeal is at the Instance of the defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against the Judgment an.d decree dated April 27, 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd court, Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 19/2 of 1986 thereby affirming those dated December 6, 1985 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge. Kalna in Title Suit No. 119 of 1979 since re-numbered as Title Suit No. 74 of 1983.2. The respondents No. 1 to 10 filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the present appellants from disturbing their alleged peaceful possession in the suit property. The case made out by the plaintiffs may be summarised thus :--(a) The suit property originally belonged to one Adwaitya Mondal, who died leaving his wife, Nandaranl as his sole limited owner prior to the coming into operation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (b) Nandaranl af...
M/S. Ramkrishna Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vs. M/S. Egra Thana ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT307(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. A question which, inter alia, arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a subsequent arbitrator appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Society can consider the evidences brought by the parties before the previous arbitrator.2. The basic fact giving rise to the aforementioned question is asfollows :--On or about 14th June, 1995 the appellant filed a dispute case against the respondent No. 1 before the Registrar, Co-operative Society for recovery of certain amount which was registered as Dispute Case No. 54/95-96. The Registrar instead of resolving the said dispute himself appointed one Sri Arun Kumar Das, respondent No. 9 herein as an Arbitrator. Admittedly the said Arbitrator could not pass an award within the prescribed period but the said respondent proceeded with the hearing of the said dispute being Dispute Case No. 54/95-96 between 23rd June. 1995 to 19th May, 1997. Keeping in view the fact that no award could be made within the aforementioned p...
Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Cesc Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT399(HC)
S. Banerjea, J.1. Common questions of law and fact being involved in all the cases, the same have been heard analogously and will be governed by the same judgment.2. In each of the writ petitions being W.P. No. 13179(W) of 1998. W.P. No. 13180 (W) of 1998 and W.P. No. 13181 (W) of 1998, the writ petitioner Pankag Kumar Mukherjee a partner of three different small scale industrial unit has challenged the action of the CESC in disconnecting the power supply to each of the units of the petitioner on the alleged ground of tampering without notice and subsequent demand of the CESC for amount towards alleged unrnetered consumption. In W.P. No. 13179 (W) of 1998 such disconnection had been made in respect of M/s. B.T. Industrial Company, a small scale industrial unit of which the petitioner partner having Its factory and office at 6. B.T. Road, P.O. Panlhati, Police Station - Khardah, Dlst.-24 Parganas (N). In W.P. No. 13180 (W)/98 such disconnection had been made in respect of M/s. Sampa Man...
The Director, Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute and ors. Vs. Bisw ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)3CALLT162(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal Is directed against a judgement and order dated 11th June, 1993 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Civil Order No. 14597(W)/92 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the petitioner was allowed.2. Shortly stated the fact of the matter is as follows:3. There existed two Institutes known as Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute and Chittaranjan Cancer Hospital. The institute was formed by the Prime Minister of India. Health Minister of Government of WestBengal and other high officials as would appear from the Memorandum of Association thereof. The said Society was registered under the Society Registration Act. The aforementioned Chittaranjan Cancer Hospital was amalgamated with the Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) with the objects mentioned in the Memorandum of Association.4. The writ petitioner-1st respondent was a Ward Master working tn the Chittaranjan Cancer Hospital. He was on a scale of pay of Rs. 13907-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »