Kolkata Court August 1999 Judgments

Tirupati Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]242ITR13(Cal)

1. On three reference applications, the Tribunal has referred the tallowing questions in Reference No. 119 of 1992, Reference No. 121 of 1992 and Matter No. 2324 of 1992, for the opinion of this court : '1. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the materials available on record, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,01,250 in computing taxable income of the assessee (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that there was no material in support of the assessee's claim of having advanced monies to Pushpak Commercial Co. Ltd., towards booking of office flat for commercial purposes is against the evidence on record and/or otherwise unreasonable and perverse 2. (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, the Tribunal was justified in confirming t...

Poddar Projects Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Cal)271,[1999]240ITR572(Cal)

1. By this application under Section 260A, learned counsel appearing for the asscssee submits that the following question, referred at page 4 of the memorandum of appeal is a substantial question of law, which requires interpretation : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a judicious interpretation of Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to get 'interest on interest' on the sum paid in pursuance of the order of assessment for the assessment year 1988-89 ?' 2. Before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), the assessee has raised an additional ground and claimed that the assessec is entitled to 'interest on interest' payable under Section 244(1A) of the Act. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), reliance was placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in D. ]. Works v. Deputy CIT : [1992]195ITR227(Guj) . Admittedly, that decision i...

Pacheria Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Bally Charge a ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]125STC142(Cal)

Ajay Nath Ray, J.1. In this writ application the writ petitioner claims relief against assessment of and also recovery of interest under the Central Sales Tax Act on sales which are covered by the State sales tax laws.2. In the case of India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam reported at [1997] 106 STC 460 the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the provision of collection of interest being not a procedural provision, it cannot be lifted from the Central sales tax laws into the State laws.3. The writ petitioner relies on this case heavily and submits that amounts illegally collected should be directed to be repaid to the writ petitioner.4. The orders of State sales tax assessment including appellate orders range between December 30, 1994 and January 9, 1997.5. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that where refund of money is the sole substantial remedy claimed by the writ petitioners, in such cases a suit is an appropriate remedy and not a writ.6. The case of Suganmal was relied ...

Tirupati Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Taxs

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN75(Cal)

ORDEROn three reference applications, the Tribunal has referred the following questions in Reference No. 119 of 1992, Reference No. 121 of 1992 and Matter No. 2324 of 1992, for the opinion of this Court:'1. (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the materials available on record, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,01,250 in computing taxable income of the assessee ?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that there was no material in support of the assessee's claim of having advanced monies to Puspak Commercial Co. Ltd. towards booking of office flat for commercial purposes is against the evidence on record and/or otherwise unreasonable and perverse ?(c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of provision of section 40A(3) read with rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition o...

Md. Kasem Ali Mondal and Etc. Etc. Vs. Ajoy Rande and ors. Etc.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2000CriLJ358

S.B. Sinha, Ag. C.J. 1. The question as to whether an order passed by a Ld. Judge of High Court in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), issuing direction either by modifying its own order or by issuing directions which could not be issued even in the writ application is appealable, is the question involved herein.2. The High Court as a Court of Record, has power to punish a Contemner for contempt of its own Court, Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides for such power. This power is.not derived from any statute. It's jurisdiction is clearly derived from its being a Court of Record. Article 215 only corroborates this status of the High Court. Even without Article 215, the High Court would have the jurisdiction to punish for its contempt. This power of the High Court to punish for contempt of itself cannot be taken away by parliamentary leg...

Caltradeco Steel Sales (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of I ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]243ITR643(Cal)

1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order of the learned single judge dated July 27, 1999. The main grievance of the assessee is that the learned single judge has not stayed the operation of the notice under Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while, at the same time, the proceeding for the assessment year 1998-99 in pursuance of notice under Section 158BC is pending. 2. Heard learned counsel for the assessee and the Revenue. 3. Notices under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been issued to the appellants, Caltradeco Steel Sales (P.) Ltd., Shri Mahesh Kumar Goyal, and Shri Dinesh Kumar Goyal. The copies of the relevant notices are at pages 100, 101 and 103 of the application. 4. We perused the notices. By issue of these notices, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-VII, Calcutta, required these assessees to attend his office on June 22, 1999, June 26, 1999 and July 11, 1999, respectively, either the assessee will appear in pe...

Reliance Jute Mills (international) Ltd. Vs. Fifth Industrial Tribunal ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ228Cal

D.P. Kundu, J.1. The writ petitioner, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Employer), has called in question an award dated April 13, 1999 passed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-93/97.2. The respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) while serving the employer was charge-sheeted on the allegation that on May 18, 1983 while the workman was on duty and going home after completing his duties, the darwan of the mill found him carrying one tin containing three gunny bags belonging to the company. The darwan asked the workman why he was taking away gunny bags of the company without any authority but the workman could not give any explanation. Thereafter a disciplinary proceeding enquiry was conducted against the workman on the basis of the chargesheet and the workman was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and the workman was dismissed from the service of the employer.3. C...

Usha Rani Chowdhury Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. This application has been filed by Smt. Usha Rani Chowdhury being a widow mother of the deceased Govt. employee Arun Kanti Chowdhury, who died as bachelor, claiming family pension on account of the death of her son who executed a nomination in her favour for receiving full 100% amount due under Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 by a letter of nomination marked as Annexure-D to the application.It is stated that the applicant is 85 years old and she cannot work to earn her livelihood and she is in constant need of medicine and attendants for her sustenance. Since Sri Arun Kanti Chowdhury died as bachelor and there is no other earning member in the family and thereby she is entitled to get family pension as dependent of the deceased employee, Arun Kanti Chowdhury. It is stated in the application that only C.G.E.G.I.S. amount of Rs. 1,20,000 has been paid to the applicant by the respondents. But the respondents did not grant family pension till date and they als...

Cargola Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Ghanashyamlal Agarwala and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2000Cal174,(2000)1CALLT97(HC)

S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The above appeals arise out of a common Judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this court dated 24.12.98 whereby the writ petition being marked as C.R. No. 18331 (W) of 1984 and C.R. No. 18452 (W) of 1984 were disposed of with the following observations :--'If the said tea estates are being run presently by the Special Officer, even if through some agency. If there be any, the Special Officer should handover possession of the same to the lessee in terms of this order. In other words, whoever be In possession of the above two tea eatates, should hand over the possession of the same to the lessee within the stipulated period as mentioned above.'2. The admitted facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on September 18, 1976, Chargola Tea Company Private Limited as the owner of Chargola Estate granted a lease with effect from August 1, 1975 in favour of ShriGhanashyamlal Agarwal, the respondent herein in MAT No. 880/99 by a registered deed of lease for a pe...

Anz Grindlays Bank Plc Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]241ITR269(Cal)

Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions (question No. 2 is a revised question) for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that charging of interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not an appealable order ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer was correct and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was also justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in withdrawing the interest paid to the assessee under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act which was already refunded to the assessee ?3. Whether, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the charge of inte...