Kolkata Court March 2001 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goodricke Group Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2001
Reported in: [2000]77ITD245(Cal)
ORDERS. Bandyopadhyay, A.M., :This is a departmental appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 9-12-1994. The facts of the case are rather somewhat peculiar.2. The assessing officer passed the 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 Commissioner (Appeals) 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 Commissioner (Appeals) and his order will henceforth be called the first Commissioner (Appeals) and the first Commissioner (Appeals) s order). In the said order the first Commissioner (Appeals) set aside certain issues and remitted the same back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh examination after the Commissioner (Appeals) himself having taken certain positive decisions with regard to the issues raised before him. The order passed by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and anr. Vs. State o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT526(HC),2001(2)CHN98,2001CriLJ2307
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.2. This is a public interest litigation filed by the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal being a registered body under the Registration of Societies Act which has brought this public interest litigation with the following prayers:(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing that the investigation in Garbeta P.S. case No. 3 of 2001 arising out of a written complaint lodged by one Abdul Rahman Mondal on 4th January, 2001 at Garbeta P.S. be forthwith handed over and be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation being the respondent No. 7 herein. (b) A Writ and/or order or orders in the nature of Certlorarl directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein to certify and produce before the Hon'ble Court all records and the case diary pertaining to the Garbeta P.S. Case No. 3 of 2001 dated 4.1.2001, so that the same may be perused and appropriate orders be passed so that consclo-nable justice be ...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Kumar Sarangi Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ348Cal
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. The law relating to the transfer of Government Servant has more or less been crystalised in the meantime by various decisions of the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. The principle enunciated therefrom is that a transfer order made to satisfy the administrative exigencies cannot be questioned as it is entirely for the employer to decide when and where a public servant is to be placed. The Court will not ordinarily interfere with an order of transfer which is made to satisfy the exigencies of service. The Supreme Court in Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, reported in : AIR2000SC256 held in particular that merely because a Government servant happens to be posted twice at a particular place within a short range of time an inference as to his having been brought to a particular station for a particular purpose cannot be drawn. In another case, Union of India and Ors. v. S.L Abbas, reported in : (1993)IILLJ626SC it has been held that the guidel...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Latif Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, (Ezu)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(130)ELT409(Cal)
Malay Kumar Basu, J.1. This Revisional application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the judgment and order dated 16th November, 1994 passed by the ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Murshidabad in NDPS Case Nos. 6/90 under Section 29 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act 1985 By this order the ld. Judge rejected an application of the petitioners under Section 245(3) Cr.P.C. whereunder they made a prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the said case on the ground that the prosecution had failed to complete adducing of evidence within the statutory period of four years from the date on which the accused persons were arrested. The ld. Judge has rejected the application of the petitioners under Section 245(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that there had been no default on the part of the complainant and that discharge of the accused persons under this Section is not to be taken as automatic, but it is left to the discretion of the Court to be ex...
Tag this Judgment!Mcleod Russel (India) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Cal)349
ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M.This assessees appeal is directed against the order dated 8-1-1996, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) Calcutta XII, in the matter of order under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1992-93. Although the assessee has raised as many as nine grounds of appeal, the grievances of the assessee can be summed up in four categories, namely, (a) grievances against Commissioner (Appeals)s not allowing 100 per cent depreciation on Vibro Fluid Bed Drier costing Rs. 34,07,135; (b) grievances against Commissioner (Appeals)s upholding addition of Rs. 5,16,493 to the closing stock, on account of cess(c) grievances against Commissioner (Appeals)s holding that section 80HHC deduction is to be worked out after apportioning the income under rule 8; and (d) grievances against Commissioner (Appeals)s. holding that commission paid to sales agents is to be excluded for determining export turnover for the purpose of section 80HHC. We, accordingly, proceed to take up these fo...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. General Electric Co. Plc.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Cal)973
ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M. :These three appeals, filed by the revenue, are directed against three separate but identical orders dated 24-6-1994, passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), Calcutta VI in the matter of assessment orders under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 1991-92, in the cases of General Electric Company Plc. UK, English Electric Company Ltd., UK and Associated Electrical Industries Ltd., UK. The issue in all these appeals relates to one common transaction, material facts in respect of these appeals are identical, common submissions were made at the assessment and appellate stages, and, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. Respondent-assessees have also filed cross-objections in all the cases and these cross-objections are also being taken up together with the appeals.2. The revenue has raised as many as six grounds of appeal but t...
Tag this Judgment!Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Section Xx ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: [2001]249ITR253(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Notice dated June 22, 1979, issued by the respondent authority under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, served on the assessee, the petitioner abovenamed has been impugned before me in this writ petition. The said notice dated June 22, 1979, has been annexed to the writ petition and is appearing at page 54 therein. In the said notice, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-II), Calcutta, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer would not be revised under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75.2. Appearing for the petitioner, Dr. Debi Prasad Pal, learned senior counsel, submitted that the assessment order sought to be revised by the Commissioner has been passed under Section 145(3) read with Section 144B of the said Act of 1961. Under Section 144B, if the returned income exceeds Rs. 1,00,000 the matter should be referred by the Assessing Officer to the Inspecting Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!United Bank of India and ors. Vs. Nepal Sankar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1487Cal
1. The appeal is against a judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Justice Sri BARIN GHOSH on September 9, 1999 allowing the writ petition of the respondent Nepal Sankar Chowdhury quashing a letter of the U.B.I, dated June 22, 1999 whereby the basic pension of the writ-petitioner was reduced on recomputation from Rs. 4,915/- to Rs. 4,221/- and a recovery of an amount of Rs. 51,551.02 was ordered, as a result of recomputation and reduction of commutation value of pension from Rs. 1,95,180 to Rs. 1,65,633. 2. The reason given in the letter was that the date of joining of service of the writ-petitioner was inadvertently considered as April 8, 1960 at the time of the first computation instead of taking the correct date therein, which would be October 19, 1968. 3. The letter was issued some three years after the petitioner had retired from service and had started receiving retiral benefits. 4. It appears that on April 8, 1960 the writ-petitioner had joined the U.B.I. establishment in a bra...
Tag this Judgment!Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Ito and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Cal)430
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.Notice dated 22-6-1979, issued by the respondent-authority under section 263 of the Income Tax Act served on the assessee, the petitioner above named, has been impugned before me in this writ petition. The said notice, dated 22-6-1979, has been annexed to the writ petition and is appearing at p. 54 therein. In the said notice the Commissioner (Central-II), Calcutta, asked the assessee to show-cause as to why the order passed by the assessing officer would not be revised under section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75.2. Appearing for the petitioner Dr. Debi Prasad Pal, learned senior counsel, submitted that the assessment order sought to be revised by the Commissioner has been passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the said Act, 1961. Under section 144B if the return income exceeds Rs. 1,00,000 the matter should be referred by the assessing officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In case, any objection i...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Supriya Chatterjee Vs. Bibekananda Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT161(HC),2001(2)CHN111,II(2001)DMC466
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. The appellant Smt. Supriya Chatterjee (hereinafter referred to as Supriya) preferred the Instant appeal from the Judgment and decree dated October 3. 1994 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 39 of 1993 by Sri A.K. Sadhu, Additional District Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas(S) against Sri Bibekananda Mukherjee (hereinafter referred to as Bibek), the plaintiff/respondent. Supriya was a resident of Dhanbad. Her brother Amitava was a friend of Bibek. In 1973 Supriya got married. In or about 1982 Supriya came to Calcutta and started residing at YWCA Hostel. Amitava requested Bibek to look after her in Calcutta as she had no other near relation or friend at Calcutta. In 1983 during her stay in Calcutta Supriya got friendly with Bibek. In 1983 Supriya's marriage with first husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce. In 1984 Bibek purchased a flat at Ranikuthi after obtaining loan from HDFC. According to Supriya, Supriya also helped Bibek by granting him financial assistance while ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »