Kolkata Court February 2000 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.
Appropriate Authority of Income-tax and ors. Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd. and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR318(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of the learned single judge dated December 24, 1997. (Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority of Income-tax : [1998]233ITR560(Cal) ). The appeal was listed several times. None appeared for the appropriate authority.2. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgment. The learned single judge has set aside the order of the appropriate authority on the ground that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the vendor and vendee and there are several discrepancies in the proceeding before acquisition of the property in terms of Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned single judge has specifically emphasised on the decision in the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India : [1993]199ITR530(SC) .3. During' the course of the argument before the learned single judge, learned counsel Dr. Pal on behalf of respondent No. 1 also prayed that the matter be remitted to the appropriat...
Appropriate Authority and ors. Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Cal)293
ORDERY.R. Meena, J.:This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of learned single Judge, dated 24-12- 1997 (reported as Vysya bank Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority of Income-tax & Ors. (1999) 151 CTR (Cal) 239). The appeal was listed several times. None appeared for the Appropriate Authority.2. Heard learned counsel for the respondents perused the impugned judgment.Learned single Judge has set aside the order of Appropriate Authority on the ground that no reasonable opportunity has been given to vendor and vendoe and there are several discrepancies in the proceeding before acquisition of the property in terms of section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act. Learned single Judge has specifically emphasized on the decision in the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 read with : [1993]199ITR530(SC) .3. During the course of the argument before learned single Judge, learned counsel Dr. Pal on behalf of respondent No. 1 also prayed that the matter be remitted...
Park Hotel (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: [2000]243ITR514(Cal)
1. On a reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question set out at page 10 of the application for the opinion of this court (see : [1987]167ITR60(Cal) ) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income as received by Surendra Overseas Limited, be assessed as the income of the assessee from business from leasehold interest ?'2. The facts, in short, are that for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer has questioned the assessee why the income from leasehold property, which has been sub-leased to Surendra Overseas Limited, should not be taxed in the hands of the assessee and also why that income should not be taxed as income from house property.3. After hearing' the assessee, the gross rent estimated in the aforesaidyears was taxed in the hands of the assessee as income from house property. In appeal,...
Haridas Bhattacharjee Vs. Smt. Suparna Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC611
P.K. Sen, J. 1. This revision application is at the instance of the husband and is directed against an order dated 30th March, 1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah in M. Case No. 34/96.2. In a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. there was an order for maintenance in favour of the wife and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 500/-per month. In another proceeding, there was an order for alimony pendente lite which was made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Advocate moving this application submits that the husband should not be made liable for both the payments. None appears on behalf of the wife although notice appears to have been duly served.3. Now to meet the ends of justice, I direct that the order passed by the learned Magistrate with regard to maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. shall be kept in abeyance so long the wife gets alimony pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The order made under Section 125, Cr....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›