Kolkata Court April 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. General Fibre Dealers (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Cal)392
Y.R. Meena, J.On an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') Tribunal has referred the following questions set out in para. 6 at p. 6 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 allowing investment allowance on jeeps and motor-cycles owned by the assessee under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing extra shift allowance on building and furniture as per section 32 read with rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 35C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee has filed its return on 20-11-1978, showing the total income of Rs. 2,62,601. The assessment was completed under section 144 on 31-1-1981...
Tag this Judgment!Shrimati Nupur Agarwal Vs. Amit Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT202(HC)
P. K. Samanta, J.1. This revislonal application is by the wire/defendant in Matrimonial Suit No. 244/98. The said suit is presently pending before the Court of Additional District. Judge, 3rd Court, Bafasat and in fact the examination in chief of the husband/plaintiff has been completed. This revisional application arises out of an order dated 24th March. 2000 passed by the said Additional District Judge rejecting the petition of the wife/ defendant under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the said Matrimonial Suit to any other Court of the Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas, (South) at Barasat.2. The case made out by the wife/defendant in the said petition under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the learned Court in course of recording evidence of the husband/plaintiff made comments that the wife should file an application under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act as otherwise the decree for divorce is inevitable in the suit, and that the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. S.G. TIn Printers Private Ltd. Vs. R.P.F. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT364(HC),[2001(88)FLR844],(2001)ILLJ628Cal
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 10.3.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellants herein was dismissed.2. The fact of the matter shorn of all unnecessary details is as follows.A partnership business was started, wherefor a deed of partnership was executed in the year 1984. The partnership business related to printing and composing work. Admittedly, a statement of number of employees, workers and labourers from January 1986 to July 1998 had been filed, from a perusal whereof it appears that during all the periods, the number of employees was less than 20. However, the five partners of the partnership firm were also getting salary.3. On or about 23.8.95, the said partnership business was converted into a private limited company. A proceeding under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the said Act) was...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Bhattacharjee (Deceased by Lrs) and ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal239
ORDERP.K. Sen, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of plaintiffs and is directed against order No. 55 dated 7-2-2000 passed by Sri S.N. Maity, Learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore by which the ld. Judge recalled the writ of Commission issued earlier by the said Court to examine a witness.2. In a suit for granting of Letter of Administration the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for examination of sole surviving attesting witness who happens to be a Doctor i.e. Dr. Ajitananda Mukhopadhyay on the ground of his illness and further ground that the said Dr. Ajitananda Mukhopadhyay was unable to attend Court and accordingly Commission was issued for examination of the said witness. It is not disputed that the defendant of that suit, on being aggrieved by the said order, moved in revision and this Court did not interfere with the order of the Trial Court appointing Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Jash Karan Rathi Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ182
ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr. P..C. has been filed by Jash Karan Rathi against the State of West Bengal challenging the order dated 7-9-92 passed by the Collector, E. C. Act, Jalpaiguri in E. C. Case No. 8/26 of 92-93 arising out of Dhubguri P. S. Case No. 51/92 dated 7-8-92 as erroneous and illegal. By this order learned Collector, E.C. Act confiscated the seized articles namely, 48.50 quintals of Pulses and directed their sale and deposit of the sale-proceed to the Government treasury. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this application may be summarised as follows :--A raid was held at the grocery shop of the applicant at Dhubguri bazar by the Dhubguri Police in the absence of the applicant and as the son of the applicant failed to produce the books of account to the Officers on their demand, they seized 29 tins of mustard oils, 59 bags of Pulses of different variety and also...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Pareek Vs. R.M. Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT238(HC)
G.C. De, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.97 passed by Shri M. M. Sur, Additional District Judge, tenth Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 231 of 1996 by which the Judgment and decree dated 31.5.96 passed by Smt. C. Vora, Munslf of the second Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 195 of 1996 was confirmed.2. At the time of admission hearing before a Divisional Bench of this Court on 3.9.97, the following substantial question of law wds formulated :'Whether the learned Courts below granted decree without considering the relevant criteria for eviction of a tenant on the ground of the landlord's personal requirement, and in any event, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Courts below failed to consider as to whether the decree for partial eviction would serve the purpose of the plaintiff.'3. Briefly stated the plaint case is that the plaintiff is the owner of a two-storeyed building on premises No. 29/2, S. N. Roy Road, B...
Tag this Judgment!Daroga Thakur and ors. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR21],(2000)IILLJ1445Cal
Barin Ghosh, J.1. This writ petition is by three petitioners seeking a mandate upon Damodar Valley Corporation to absorb them in the post of driver against sanctioned posts in which they are working:2. The undisputed facts of the case may be summarised thus. The Damodar Valley Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') is a statutory Corporation incorporated by and under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948. Section 7 of the said Act provides that the pay and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of the Corporation shall as respects the Secretary and Financial Advisor, be such as may be prescribed, and as respects the other officers and servants be such as may be determined by the regulations. Section 60 of the said Act empowered the Corporation to make regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government, by publishing such regulations in the form of notification in the Gazette pf India, for carrying out its functions under the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chhindwara Fuels
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Cal)601,[2000]245ITR9(Cal)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion along with the statement of case :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding the view that the sales tax subsidy of Rs. 2,06,400 received by the assessee was a capital receipt not liable to income-tax ?'2. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer (North-East) wrote a letter to the assessee dated February 20, 1989 (sic). In that letter, he claimed that the sales tax subsidy received by the firm amounting to Rs. 2,06,400 from the Directorate of Industries, Madhya Pradesh Government, is exempt from income-tax, as it is not a revenue receipt. The Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the assessee and treated it as a revenue receipt. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has followed the decisions of the Madhya Prades...
Tag this Judgment!Mihir Saha Vs. Madhu Chhanda Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC432
Malay Kumar Basu, J.1. This is an application under Section 407(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an order transferring the criminal case being Balurghat Police Station Case No. 66/97 dated 14th February, 1997 under Sections 498-A, 406, 497 and 120, I.P.C. corresponding to G.R, Case No. 205 of 1997 from the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balurghat to any other Court in the State.2. The case of the petitioner is that he married the opposite party No. 1 according to the Hindu rites on 26th February, 1993 at Balurghat and since after the marriage the opposite party No. 1 lived with him as his wife at his father's house at Cooch Behar. Later, on 22nd January, 1995, the opposite party No. 1 left her matrimonial home without any rhyme and reason and did not return. Thereafter a divorce suit was filed by the petitioner at Cooch Behar Court which is still pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, Cooch Behar. Subsequently, the opposite party No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!University of Calcutta and ors. Vs. Amit Jalan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT1(HC)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. All these four appeals and the stay applications arise from a common order, therefore, all these four appeals and the stay applications are disposed of by the common order. Two appeals and stay applications are from the Original Side and two appeals and stay applications are from the Appellate Side. The Appeal Nos. T. 334 and 336 of 2000 and stay applications being T.No. 333 and 335 of 2000 are from Original Side and appeals being MAT No. 869 and 870 of 2000 and stay applications being CAN No. 2274, and 2275 of 2000 are from the Appellate Side. In all these matters the sole question is that whether all the students who have not been able to secure 65% of the total attendance are entitled to appear in regular examination of LLB of 5 years duration or not. All the petitioners are students of 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year and 5th year and they are short of minimum required attendance i.e. 65%. Therefore, the matter was agitated by the students through their Un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »