Kolkata Court March 2001 Judgments

Jamil Akhtar Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4529

ORDERDebiprasad Sengupta, J.1. In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of proceeding being G.R. Case No. 2719/2000 arising out of Beniapukur P.S. Case No. 216 dated 11-8-2000 under Section 121/121A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The aforesaid case was registered with Beniapukur police station on the basis of a complaint lodged by the officer-in-charge, Anti-Terrorist-Cell, Special Branch, Calcutta alleging commisison of offences punishable under Section 120B/121/121A/153A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that being a member of Harkat-Ul-Muzahidin (HUM) he is the contactman of Abu Sayed, Chief of HUM, Dicca. The petitioner's telephone number was found in possession of Billal, a Bangladesh National who was arrested at Basirhat on April 25/26, 2000. Said Billal had revealed that the telephone number of the petitioner was given to him by Abu Sayed in Ducca with the information that the present petitioner is the contactman in...

Arjun Hazra Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT353(HC),[2001(90)FLR1147]

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The instant writ application is filed by the petitioner praying as under;'A Rule Nisi upon the respondents to show cause as to why an order and/or direction and/or writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued commanding the respondents to forthwith withdraw and/or cancel the impugned order of dismissal from service and to forebear from giving any effect or further effect to the same and/or acting in any manner prejudicial or detrimental to the rights and interest of the petitioner concerning his livelihood and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all back wages.'2. By the order impugned in the instant writ application being annexure 'E', the petitioner was informed that he is dismissed from service. The impugned order recites that a domestic enquiry into the charge of unauthorized absence was conducted by a duly appointed enquiry officer though proper notice of enquiry was issued to the petitioner by registered post and also displayed in Colliery Notic...

Overseas Merchandise Inspection Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)80ITD176(Kol.)

1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1992-93 on the following ground :- That the CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the claim of deduction under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of certain earnings in Convertible Foreign Exchange for services rendered from India.2. The assessee, the Overseas Marchandise Inspection Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. (in short, OMIC India) claimed deduction under Section 80-O of the Act of Rs. 4,81,787. According to the assessee OMIC International, Tokyo is the parent body which have different branches in different countries in the world. The OMIC International entered into a contract for cotecna inspection in respect of various Asian countries including Kenya and Benin. For the purpose of rendering services in India the assessee was appointed by OMIC International. The job of the assessee was to make inspection and survey of...

Bharat Chandra Ghosh and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and or ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT183(HC),[2001(90)FLR572],2001LabIC3198

A.K. Banerjee, J. 1. Writ petitioner was a clerk in Coal India Limited.He was charge-sheeted on September 25. 1985, inter alia, for misappropriation of money amounting to Rs. 2931. 94 by drawing fictitious bills. That the amount of Rs. 2931.94 covers three bills i.e. bill for Rs. 1407-77 drawn in favour of one Shri Narayan, Loco Driver; Rs. 1256.83 drawn in favour of one Kati Maji. Driller and Rs. 267.34 drawn in favour of Bodi Kora.2. It appears from the deposition of Shri Kumar an officer of Coal India Limited that the first two amounts had been drawn by the respectiveemployees whereas the third amount had been deposited as unclaimed.3. The charge-sheet had ultimately resulted an order of dismissal. An appeal was preferred against the said order of dismissal. Such appeal has not been disposed of as yet. Challenging the order of dismissal reference was made to the Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The tribunal ultimately gave award its against the writ...

i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]249ITR104(Cal)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1964-65, was assessed by the Assessing Officer by his order dated March 20, 1969, allowing a rebate at 20 per cent, by considering the assesses as a limited company without having substantial interest of the public at large. Such order of assessment was taken on appeal and the appellate authority reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and held the petitioner as a company having substantial interest of the public at large and thereby directed rebate of 30 per cent, instead of 20 per cent. allowed initially by the Assessing Officer.2. In terms of the direction of the appellate authority the Assessing Officer by his order dated April 19, 1972, revised his own order by granting rebate at 30 per cent, instead of 20 per cent. The order of the appellate authority was impugned by the Revenue before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal upheld the order of the appellate authority by its order dated September 21, 19...

United Bank of India Vs. Natural Synthetics Products and

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 24.2.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in T.A.No. 311 of 1995.2. The plaintiff-appellant Bank instituted a suit for realisation of Rs. 31 lakh and odd alleged to have been given to the Firm namely respondent-defendant No. 1 of which respondent-defendant Nos. 2,3 and father of respondent-defendant Nos. 4 to 7 (since dead) were the partners, 3. In course of hearing of the claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the defendant entered appearance. Defendant No. 1 the Firm filed a written statement but did not contest up to the last. Defendant No. 2 also filed a separate written statement but did not contest up to the last. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 filed a joint written statement and contested the matter till the end.4. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm of which defendants 2, 3 and father of defendants 4 to 7 were partners. On the death of their fath...

income-tax Officer Vs. Iran Tea Trading Co. (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)80ITD537(Kol.)

1. These three appeals are by the Revenue against the three orders of the CIT(A) all for the assessment year 1985-86. For the sake of convenience, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The first appeal (ITA No. 2879/Cal/95) arises out of the order of the Assessing Officer under Section 154, dated 17-6-1993. The facts are that in the original assessment order dated 25-1-1988, the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC of Rs. 18,66,484 was allowed at Rs. 12,95,588. The Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 set aside the said order vide his order dated 29-1-1990 by observing that the commission payment was allowed without full investigation. A fresh order of assessment under Section 143(3) pursuant to the directions of the CIT under Section 263 was made and in this order the disallowance of commission was made. Besides, the allowance of deduction under Section 80HHC was reduced to Rs. 2,827 only. The reduction was because the convertible f...

Rajiv Kumar Adukta Vs. Designated Authority, Commissioner of Income-ta ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Cal)424,[2001]251ITR518(Cal)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The point has become very simple in this writ petition because of the admitted position that no prior intimation for adjustment and/or setting off under Section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was given to the writ petitioner for the relevant assessment year of 1991-92. The first point is whether such an adjustment and/or setting off is permissible under the law or not and the next point, if not, then whether declaration dated December 30, 1998, filed by the writ petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, in respect of the assessment year 1991-92 can be directed to be accepted in view of the aforesaid illegal setting off and/or adjustment of the refund.2. It appears that on the first point in the case reported in J. K. Industries Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]238ITR820(Cal) , Justice Ajoy Nath Ray, has been pleased to hold amongst others that mere intimation after adjustment is not the requirement under Section 245 of the Act. It has been categorically hel...

Ramapada Samanta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT275(HC)

P.K. Ray, J.1. In this writ application the writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind, withdraw and/or set aside the impugned memo dated May 13, 1999 issued by the respondent No. 3 (annexure-I to the petition) forthwith; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the post of Clerk in Salkia Sabitri Balika Vidyalaya (High School) forthwith: 2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on 3rd August, 1992 the Managing Committee of the school appointed him to perform the duties of class IV staff i.e. peon as well as clerk of the School in question. Since the writ petitioner was not absorbed in Class IV staff, the petitioner approached this Court by filling a writ petition C.O. No. 382 (W) of 1994 with a prayer to appear before the selection Committee for Interview for the post of Class IV Staff. Though the name of the writ petitioner was not spo...

All India Vijaya Bank Officers' Association and Ors. Vs. Vijaya Bank a ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Cal)506,[2001]250ITR500(Cal)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta J.1. By this writ petition, writ petitioner No. 1 being the Officers' Association and Nos. 2 and 3 being the respective office-bearers of petitioner No. 1, have challenged the action of the respondent-bank authorities in recovering the amount of the alleged tax on perquisites on account of supply of furniture at a concessional rate. The deductions have already been made and still are being made. Mr. Murarka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that there is no legal basis to recover the aforesaid amount after deducting standard rent of the furniture being supplied as per service condition to the officers concerned over and above a nominal rent being charged and recovered. He contends further that the levy of income-tax on the perquisite of the employees can be imposed under the provisions of Section 17, Sub-section (2). The aforesaid section authorises the employer concerned to deduct at source on account of tax on the value of any benefit or am...