Kolkata Court March 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Cal)282,[2000]244ITR422(Cal)

Y.R. Meena, J.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 2 of the statement of case for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding' that loss of Rs. 1,05,489 on account of sale of shares was genuine ?'2. The assessment year is 1984-85. During the course of assessment, the Assessing' Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed a loss of Rs. 1,05,489 on account of loss on sale of shares. The Assessing Officer has referred the details of purchase and sale of the shares and made annexures in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer further found that there were two sets of share brokers--one set of M. L. Santhalia and Sew Karan Dhelia. The shares are of J. K. Synthetics Ltd., Tata Tea Ltd., Hindustan Aluminium and Gwalior Rayon Co. These shares were purchased by the assessee from M. L. Santhalia and the entire lot was sold to...

Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and an ...

Court: Kolkata

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This is an application filed by the writ petitioner, inter alia, challenging the notice of invocation of bank guarantee dated November 19, 1999, issued by respondent No. 1 and the letter dated November 25/30,1999, issued by the United Bank of India, respondent No. 2 herein, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner is a sick industrial unit within the meaning of the West Bengal Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1972'), as also under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA of 1985'), wherein the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the BIFR') has propounded a scheme for rehabilitation, and thereby the invocation of the bank guarantee dated July 11, 1999, issued by the United Bank of India has to be declared as arbitrary, motivated and/or illegal. 2. The facts of the case briefly ar...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Cal)17,[2000]245ITR457(Cal)

Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of a learned single judge dated January 28, 1999 (see : [1999]238ITR820(Cal) ), and prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside.2. The petitioner/respondent is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent-company filed the declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 to settle the tax arrears for the said assessment years. On account of settlement of the tax liability under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, there was a refund due. Instead of refunding that amount part of the amount of refund due was adjusted against the tax liability and withheld that refund due to the petitioner and there was no tax arrear within the meaning of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The petitioner has wrongly been deprived of his right to get the refund due.3. Against the balance demands payable for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, resp...

Dhananjoy Samanta Vs. Sabitri Samanta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: II(2000)DMC698

Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. I did not direct notice to be served upon the respondent since it can be disposed of even without hearing her.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 275 of 1998 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore and also the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk in Misc: Case No. 32 of 1992 in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The opposite party is undisputedly the married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was said to have been solemnised on 17.5.1990and out of their lawful wedlock a daughter was born. After some time the relationship of the petitioner and also the opposite party was strained as a reason whereof the opposite party left the matrimonial house and joined her parents' house alongwith the female child. Since the petitioner did not take care of the opposite party so also the ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Cal)218,[2000]111TAXMAN369(Cal)

Meena, J. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 28-1-1999 and prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside.2. The petitioner/respondent is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent-company filed the declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for the assessment years 199192 and 1992-93 to settle the tax arrears for the said assessment years. On account of settlement of the tax liability under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS), there was a refund due. instead of refunding that amount part of the amount of refund due was adjusted against the tax liability and the refund due to the petitioners was withheld and there was no tax arrear within the meaning of KVSS. The petitioner has wrongly been deprived of its right to get the refund due.3. Against the balance demands payable for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, respondent No. 2 had set off refunds. An intimation was sent to ...

D.K. Saha Vs. Debendra Dholkia

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT172(HC),2000(2)CHN68,[2001]106CompCas492(Cal)

B. Panlgrahl, J.1. An order of conviction and sentenced passed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court also the learned Judge. 5th Bench, City Civil & Sessions Court, Calcutta has been assailed in this revlslonal application.2. The accused/petitioner is undlsputedly the proprietor of D.K. International having Its registered office at 2B, Grant Street, Calcutta. The complainant/opposite party is the Director of M/s. Slewart and Dholakta Ltd. having Us registered office at P-35, India Exchange Place, Calcutta. The complainant/opposite party filed a complaint on 15.4.92 against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, (liter alia, alleging that the accused/petitioner in discharge of his existing liability issued an A/C Payee Cheque being Cheque No. 021573 dated 31.1.92 of Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Chakraberia Bra...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nikunja Behari Das (Legal Representativ ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]244ITR244(Cal)

1. On a reference application, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at page 5 of the statement of case for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the onus is on the Revenue to establish that the assessee was the owner of the valuables and books of account found and seized from the business-cum-residential premises of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the sum of Rs. 12,395 from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 and the sum of Rs. 94,447 from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 ?' There was a search at the residence of the assessee and books including gold jewellery were seized. When on the seized material some additions were made in the hands of the assessee, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 on an application under Secti...

North Calcutta Co-operative Labour Contract Construction Society Limit ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT329(HC)

A. Kabir, J.1. This contempt application arises out of the order dated 10th September, 1998, passed by me on the writ application filed by the petitioners herein disposing of the same with certain directions for absorption of the writ petitioners in Group-D posts under the respondents.2. When the contempt application was moved, It had been submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnors/opposite parties that an appeal had been preferred by the respondents against the aforesaid order, together with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Since then, the application for condonation of delay has been allowed, and an application for stay of the order appeal against is pending decision.3. Appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnors/opposite parties, Mr. Rathin Das took a preliminary objection as to whether the contempt proceedings should be continued with during the pendency of the appeal and the stay application filed therein....

M/S. TIn Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT570(HC),[2001(88)FLR187]

B. Panigrahi, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuing a writ of mandamus against the respondents from not giving effect and a further effect to the impugned order dated 28lh May, 1999 vide annexure K to the writ petition and be further declared that the petitioner No. 1 is not covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and schemes framed thereunder.2. The essential facts led to filing of the writ petition is as follows :The petitioners had started a Partnership business under a Deed of Partnership and were engaged in printing and composing work since 1984,At the beginning, there were only five employees with two partners. But in gradual course of time the number of Partners were increased from two to five and later on eleven employees were engaged. Subsequently in March 1996, the Parnership business was dissolved and it wa3 converted into a Private Limited Company under the name and style as S.G. Ti...

Rajat Mohan Chatterjee Vs. Amitabh Banerjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT56(HC)

S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 28.1.99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Civil Revision No. 139 of 1997 arising out of Misc. Case No.4 of 1997.2. The petitioner herein filed a Title Suit No.243 of 1972 in the Court of 2nd Munsif at Alipore praying for aviation of the respondent from the suit premises at 58/F Hindusthan Park, P.S. Gariahat, 1st floor. That suit was decreed. The respondent preferred appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge. 5th Court, Alipore and the Title Appeal No. 1051 of 1977 was disposed of on 14.2.78 affirming the Judgment of the trial Court. The operation of the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court was, however, stayed till 30.3.78 as the appellant/judgment-debtor wanted to prefer second appeal. In the meantime, the decree-holder put the decree into execution long before the disposal of the first appeal and...