Kolkata Court June 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India and ors. Vs. Shri Biswanath Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT481(HC),[2001(91)FLR442]
D.P. Kundu, J.1. In this proceeding, the petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 16th February, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair in O.A. No. 54/AN/1998.2. By the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 16.2.2001, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), inter alia passed the following directions:(a) The termination order dated 29.8.97 is set aside being illegal, (b) The question of pay and allowances etc. as admissible to the applicant after selling aside of the termination order will be dealt with by the competent respondent authorities according to the existent rules, (c) The competent respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiate, justified disciplinary action against the applicant within the period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order in accordance with the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, (d) The applicant...
Nirode Baran Mukherjee Vs. Smt. Gayatri Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT21(HC)
P. K. Ray, J. 1. In this revision application, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 100 of 1996 being the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 17th November 1998 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division ) Bankura in Title Suit No. 100 of 1996 whereby in terms of the application of the defendant praying stay of further proceeding of this Suit, the Court allowed the same. The application for stay of further proceeding of Title Suit No. 100 of 199G was filed by defendant thereto on the ground that challenging the preliminary decree of the said partition suit dated 7lh August, 1988, the title suit No.7 of 1998 since has already been filed and pending before the Court of Civil judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Bankura on the ground that such preliminary decree was passed upon exercising the fraud upon the Court by way of non-disclosure of different facts and suppression of material facts. By the impugned order, learned Court below stayed the proceeding of the partition suit bei...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goodricke Group Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR187(Cal)
1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at page 2 of the paper book, for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure of Rs. 3,63,977 incurred as commission on the UK selling agent was for the purpose of maintenance of an agency for the promotion of sales outside India only is based on any relevant evidence or perverse ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) on the commission of Rs. 3,63,977 paid to the UK export agency ?'2. The assessee is Goodricke Group Ltd. The assessment year is 1980-81. The. assessee is a resident-company, deriving income from sale of tea manufactured out of leaves grown in its own garden. During the assessment year, the assessee has claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act, on export markets development allowance which includes the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shriram Bearings Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Cal)142,[2001]251ITR155(Cal),[2001]119TAXMAN970(Cal)
1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question, for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of the technical collaboration agreement, the Tribunal was justified in allowing' the payment of Rs. 2 lakhs as revenue expenditure ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company manufacturing ball bearings. The assessment year is 1980-81. The assessee entered into an agreement styled 'Technical Collaboration Agreement' with Industriework Echsof-flar, INA Ingenieur Disast GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany (INA). The agreement provided for the supply of technical know-how, which the INA had already developed, being in the same line of business, for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs and subject to Indian tax is sold to the assessee. According to Clause 7 of the agreement, the lump sum was to be paid in the instalments as under :(a) Rs. 2 lakhs after ...
Straw Products Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR444(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been made challenging the show-cause notice under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1985-86 issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Calcutta, dated March 6, 1990. It appears that the original order of assessment has been merged with the appeal proceeded before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/Appellate Commissioner of Income-tax and if such order is merged with the order of the appellate authority, the show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-1, Calcutta, cannot exist superseding the authority of the Appellate Commissioner of Income-tax.2. Learned counsel for the income-tax authority has no other alternative but to concede to this point since the same is available under the Explanation as given in Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, itself. Therefore, the order is not a valid one in law and cannot be sustained. Hence, the same should set aside.3. In respect of t...
Durga Metal Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(77)ECC220,2001(131)ELT544(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Used aluminium cans were imported by the writ petitioner vide bill of lading dated 17th August, 1982. After the said goods arrived in India, the custom authority imposed duty by virtue of Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by virtue of a notification dated July 31,1982 which has been impugned in this writ petition.2. Two-fold challenge has been made by the writ petitioner :- (1) The additional duty levied under Section 3 of the said Act, 1975 is not tenable in view of the fact that the used aluminum cans imported by the petitioner were nothing but aluminum scraps and can not come under purview of the Section 3 of the said Act, 1975.(2) The auxiliary duty levied by the Customs Authority in view of the change of the tariff is also not tenable and the duty should have been imposed on the date of booking of the said goods.3. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, in his usual fa...
Kulsan Bibi Vs. Nripendra Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT33(HC)
P.K. Ray, J. 1. Defendant-tenant being the petitioner has preferred this Revisional Application assailing the order date 13th September, 1996 passed by learned Munsif, First Court at Barulpur in Title Suit No. 131 of 1992 whereby application for amendment of written statement was rejected.Defendant-tenant prayed for amendment of written statement by his application dated 5th December, 1996 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure on the contention that major portion of tenanted premises is under the ownership of Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal. In the written statement, it is admitted that tenanted premises was the ejmali property of there brothers' namely Banamali Sarkar and two others and on behalf of them one Sri Niranjan Naskar, an employee used to collect rental from the defendant-tenant.2. It is further asserted in the written statement in paragraph 16 that after demise of said Banamali Sarkar, the legal heirs have not been Made parties. Hence, from the...
M/S Durgapur Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Ninth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT72(HC),[2001(91)FLR790]
P.K. Ray, J.1. In this writ application the writ petitioner, a company, being an undertaking of Government of West Bengal has challenged the award dated 28.4.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer. 9th Industrial Tribunal at Durgapur, in Case No. X-6/88 as arose under reference being No. 479-I.R/11L-81(A)/84 dated 9.3.88, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal only on the basis of judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Burdwan, dated 3.10.80 answered the reference by holding that the order of dismissal of the workman Sri Pradip Kumar Roy, who is respondent No. 3 herein was unjustified and thereby passed necessary order of reinstatement in service and payment of back wages from the date of suspension till reinstatement.2. The writ petitioner herein has submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider the legal aspect of the matter and thereby came to an illegal finding relying solely on the basis of a judgment of the criminal appellate Court. It has ...
Rajdeo Ram Vs. Gita Rani Sarkar Alias Rani Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT101(HC)
P. K. Ray, J.The defendant-tenant of Title Suit No. 253 of 1991 being the petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 12th July, 1996 passedin the said suit by the Court of Munsif, First Court at Krishnanagar, Nadia whereby prayer for amendment of a decree was allowed. Suit was eviction suit under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The landlord is a plaintiff prayed for amendment of decree by incorporating the schedule therein in respect of the suit premises as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint.2. It is an admitted fact that except the description of suit premises in paragraph 1 of the plaint, no schedule of the property was mentioned in the plaint. Suit was decreed against the tenant-defendant by the trial Court. Appeal was preferred by the tenant defendant agitating the said point that there was no schedule in the plaint. The learned First appellate Court considering the matter in depth, dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff-landlord thereafter filed an application for correction ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jokai India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Cal)140,[2001]251ITR39(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question set out at page 2 of the paper book :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow investment allowance on trailers ?'2. The assessee-company derived income by sale of tea grown and manufactured by it during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer found on scrutiny of the records and books of account produced before the Assessing Officer that the assessee has claimed investment allowance on the plant and machinery employed by the assessee, which includes leaf carrying basket trailers. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the investment allowance on the leaf-carrying basket trailers on the ground that it does not form part of the machinery and plant. As it does not contribute directly to the manufacturing proce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »