Kolkata Court March 2000 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Goodricks Group Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)77ITD245(Kol.)
1. This is a departmental appeal against the order of the Commissioner oflncomc-tax (Appeals) passed on 9-12-1994. The facts of the case are rather somewhat peculiar.2. The Assessing Officer passed thy assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for this year on 27-3-1989 (this order will henceforth be called the first assessment order). The CIT(A) decided the appeal against this order along with another appeal for the assessment year 1986-87 by his common order dated 4-1-1990 (this C1T(A) and his order will henceforth be called the first C1T(A) and the first ClT(A)'s order). In the said order the first CIT(A) set aside certain issues and remitted the same back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after the CIT(A) himself having taken certain positive decisions with regard to the issues raised before him. The order passed by the Assessing Officer in giving effect to the first order of the CIT{A), as mentioned above, dealt with the issues rem...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. A.S. Wardekar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)77ITD405(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the CIT(A) dated 2-6-1992. The only ground of appeal raised by the Department is as under : That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, Calcutta erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,95,000 made by the Assessing Officer as per provision of Section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act.2. The facts of the case as appearing from the orders of the authorities below are the following : 2.1 That the assessee filed the return declaring total income of Rs. 7,48,630 on 31-8-1990. In the return filed, the assessee, however, declared in Part IV of the return, to have received the following amounts which were claimed to be exempt from tax. (i) Amount received from the estate of late Shri S.B. Wardekar, the assessee's father - Rs. 2,09,184. (ii) Amount received as compensation for non--competition to the business of W.I.E.L. paid by U.B. Group companies - Rs. 175 lakhs.In t...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Nath and Associates and anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar Seth
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT227(HC)
G.C. De, J. 1. The defendants in Title Suit No. 2485 of 1994 before the fifth Bench of the City Civil Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order No 69 dated 18.5.98 have preferred this appeal. By the said order, the learned Judge of the fifth Bench allowed the plaintiffs application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on contest and directed both the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the order with regard to the possession of the suit premises till the disposal of the suit 2. The admitted facts are--(1) the plaintiff was a tenant in respect of a garage and a servant's quarter at premises No. 14B, Camac Street covering an area of 250 sq. ft, under Rajmata Ratankumari Devi who was the owner of the entire premises. (II) By an agreement dated 5.10.81 the said Rajmata gave development right in respect of the said premises No. 14B, Camac Street to the defendant No. 1 with right to negotiate with the tenants in order to deve...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia Oil Refinery Vs. Haldia Refinery C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT19(HC)
V. K. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 24.03.1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court In C.O. No. 6266(W) of 1990 with C.O. No. 6274(W) of 1990 whereby the writ application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 120 has been allowed and the appellant and respondents 121 to 124 have been directed by the learned single Judge to regularise the services of respondents Nos. 2 to 120 who had been claiming to be the workmen entitled to be absorbed in the employment of the appellant.2. The writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were filed in this Court. The writ petitioners in both the writ applications claimed that even though they were working in the Canteen of the appellant, but run and operated by a Canteen Contractor, they were essentially and substantially the employees of the appellant and therefore were entitled to be absorbed in the regular employment of the appellant which In effect and substance meant that the appellant was u...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Dinendra Kumar Bose Vs. Sri Tapan Kumar Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT249(HC)
V.K. Gupta. J.1. This Appeal is directed against a Judgment dated 13th May, 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court whereby the application for grant of Probate of a Will filed by the Appellant was dismissed. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that one Nirmal Nalini Dassi who had been residing at No. 35A, Dr. Rajendra Road, Calcutta-20 made a Will on 11th November, 1983 and a Deed of Codicil. The said Nirmal Nalini Dassi bequeathed all her Immovable properly to Dwijendra Kumar Basu and Dlpundra Kumar Basu in equal shares and declared that they both will become the owners of all her property in absolute right. Nirmal Nalini Dassi claimed to be the sole owner of the immovable properly being House at No. 35/C, Dr. Rajendra Road, Calcutta. This property is at the centre of controversy between the parties. After the death of Nirmal NaliniDassi on or about 28th May 1986, Dlnendra Kumar Bose claiming to be the sole executor under the aforesaid Will dated 11th No...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Sibamoy Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT303(HC)
M.K. Basu, J. 1. This appeal la directed against the Judgment dated 26.5.1989 passed by Sri M.K. Gajra, Judge, City Civil Court, fifth Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 1025 of 1983 of that Court. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarised as follows :2. Sri Sibamoy Chakraborty, the plaintiff of that suit and the respondent in the present appeal filed the suit for eviction and mesne profits against the tenant, Calcutta Municipal Corporation (the appellant) on the ground of his own use and requirement. His case was that he purchased the suit premises namely. Premises No. 56A. Sri Gopal Mullick Lane, Calcutta-700 012 by a registered deed dated 19.4.80 and on 15.7.83 he sent the notice to the defendant tenant terminating his tenancy on the expiry of the month of August, 1983 and the notice was duly served on the defendant but it did not vacate the suit premises and continued to occupy the same as trespasser. The plaintiff badly required the suit premises...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jayantilal Meghani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR468(Cal)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question set out at page 3 of the application for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-mention of penalty amount will vitiate the entire order ?'The assessee is an individual and is a proprietor of Meghani Motors, Calcutta. The assessment year under reference is 1979-80. The return was filed on June 27, 1975, declaring an income of Rs. 41,550. The search was carried out on August 19, 1981. The Department seized certain books of account and documents and on the basis of that seizure, addition to the tune of Rs. 29,851 was made. That addition was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the quantum appeal. On the basis of concealed income, the proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated and the Income-tax Officer levied the penalty on hundred per cent of the ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Staff Association Vs. Popal and Kotech Property
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT34(HC)
ORDER1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against a Judgment dated 27th January 2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No. 376 of 1999.2. By the aforesaid Judgment the learned single Judge has refused the prayer of the appellant/defendant for rejection of the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the appellant that the plaint be rejected because the suit is barred by limitation has been negatived by the learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal by holding that the limitation as an issue is not relevant for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The following observation forming the basis of refusal to reject the plaint on the aforesaid ground is apposite; we quote as under :-'With regard to the point raised by Mr. Chatterjee that the suit is barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my view, the phrase 'suit i...
Tag this Judgment!Stockman Boarding House Vs. Life Insurance Corpn. of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal219
1. The defendant No. 2 is the appellant in this appeal which is directed against a judgment and decree dated 17th Feb. 1989 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the suit for eviction filed by the first respondent herein was decreed. 2. In view of the question raised in this appeal it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in details. Suffice it to say that admittedly by a registered Indenture of Lease dated 15-11-1949 between Prudential Assurance Company Limited, the predecessor in Interest of the first respondent herein and the defendant No. 1 Mrs. Harmine Madath alias Mrs. H, Madath and Mr. Vasgen David Gatachick, the premises in question were demised for a term of three years from 1-10-1949. Allegedly such a demise was made for the purposes mentioned in the Deed of Lease. The plaintiff contended that the aforementioned Vasgen David Gatachick surrendered joint lease whereafter the defendant No. 1 became the sole monthly tenant under the said...
Tag this Judgment!Amitava Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC129(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. A very interesting point is involved in this writ petition.2. The petitioner is running a cinema hall under the name and style 'Swapna' within the District of Howrah. The petitioner has been paying taxes in respect of the said cinema hall as payable under the Bengal Amusements Tax Act. At present, the system of embossing on the saleable tickets to the purchasers upon payment of advance tax is going on. There is no dues of tax in respect of the said cinema hall.3. A staff of the office of the concerned Bureau of Investigation sent all information to the cinema hall for making a visit to the Sub-Inspector of Police and on being refused a seizure has been made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bureau of Investigation as on 2nd February, 2000. From the seizure list, it appears that such seizure has been made under Section 11(4) of the Bengal Amusements Tax Act. On that very day, a notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear before the said officer along with certa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »