Kolkata Court June 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Warren Tea Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Cal)327,[2001]251ITR382(Cal)

1. In this application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Art, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 32AB, the assessee was eligible for the deduction in respect of the dividend income ?'2. The assessee is the owner of 13 tea gardens. All these are situated in upper Assam. The assessee derives income from these tea gardens. In addition to that, the assessee has also received dividend income and claimedthe benefit of Section 32AB of the Act on the dividend income also. That has been denied by the Assessing Officer. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also found that the assessee is not entitled for deduction under Section 32AB on the dividend income. In appeal before the Tribunal, it is recorded that Section 32AB(3) says what the profits of the business of an assessee for the purpose of Sub-section (1)...

Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]252ITR337(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 questions set out at pages 1 and 2 of the paper book : '1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional liability of Rs. 1,17,20,456 for eucalyptus royalty was an unascertained contingent liability and hence not an allowable deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1980-81 2. Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the said additional liability for eucalyptus royalty Rs. 1,17,20,456 was a contingent liability or that the assessee had chosen to adopt cash system of accounting in respect thereof are based on any material and/or are perverse 3. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the said additional liability for eucalyptus royalty Rs. 1,17,20,456 was neither a statutory liability nor a liability in present but a contractual or de futuro liability ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company and engaged in the man...

Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Cal)308

Y.R. Meena, J.On an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at pp 1 and 2 of the paper book :'1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional liability of Rs. 1, 17,20,456 for eucalyptus royalty was an unascertained contingent liability and hence not an allowable deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1980-81 2. Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the said additional liability for eucalyptus royalty Rs. 1,17,20,456 was a contingent liability or that the assessee had chosen to adopt cash system of accounting in respect thereof are based on any material and/or are perverse 3. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the said additional liability for eucalyptus royalty-Rs. 1,17,20,456 was neither a statutory liability nor a liability in present but a contractual or de futuro liability ?'2. The assessee is a limited company and engaged in the manufacture an...

Manpuran Das and 50 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. This miscellaneous application under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 has been filed by the Manpuran Das and 50 others, applicants of OA No. 1048/2000 which was decided by this Tribunal on 22.12.2000.2. The case set up by the applicants in this Miscellaneous Application is that the Tribunal has dismissed the original application No.1048/2000 on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy, but the said alternative remedy for referring the matter to the Regional Labour Commissioner is not efficacious and effective. The further case of the applicants is that the Tribunal inadvertently overlooked the mandatory provision of the Indian Railway Act on the basis of which the Railway Servants (Hours of Employment) Rules, 1961 have been framed and the regulation is subordinate to the Act and therefore, such a regulation could not be made. It has been stated that Section 71A(c) has been over looked and that the classification of Chowkidar from the category of continuous to ...

Sekhar Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. The instant application is directed against an order communicated under memo No. ADMN/SE/DEPTN/IRCON/248, dated 28th January, 1992, whereby the acceptance of the applicants' resignation under office order No. II/91/ 228, dated 1st January, 1991. w.e.f. 15th July, 1991 (A/N), has been cancelled on the plea of public interest. There was a prayer for direction upon the South Eastern Railway authorities to immediately release the superannuation benefits to which the applicant was entitled to together with 18% interest p.a.2. The basic facts of the case are uncontroverted. The applicant having joined the Railway Service as Store Issuer got promoted to the post of Section Officer in Garden Reach, South Eastern Railway. Subsequently, pursuant to the invitation of applications for appointment to Indian Railway Construction Company Limited (for short, IRCON), the applicant, being found eligible for appointment on deputation, was released by the parent department i.e., Railways and he thereu...

Dina Bandhu Mondal Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT347(HC),[2001(91)FLR1154],(2002)ILLJ129Cal

A.K. Banerjee. J.1. The writ petitioner was convicted by Criminal Court under sections 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Against the order of conviction an appeal was preferred where the writ petitioner was granted bail. After the order of conviction, the writ petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 2nd December, 2000 appearing at page 20 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner challenged the said show-cause notice on the ground since he had granted ball and since the subject issue is pending in appeal the show-cause noticed bad and is liable to be quashed.2. Mr. R.N. Mazumdar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent authority, submits that since the order of conviction has already been passed against the writ petitioner pendency of an appeal cannot operate as bar in proceeding against the writ petitioner in terms of the said show-cause notice. In support of his contention, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Advocate, has relied on a decision of the apex Court ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bijay Iron Stores

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]252ITR408(Cal)

1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question, set out at pages 11 and 12 of the paper book, for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that prima facie evidence of non-disclosure of income does not absolve the Department from the responsibility of proving mens rea and it is not sufficient to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) Of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1984-85. The assessee-firm consists of two partners and it is carrying on business in iron and steel sheets. On March 30, 1984, search and seizure was carried out in the business and residential premises of the partners and certain books and loose papers had been seized at the time of search. Apart from the papers and other materials, the relevant part of the seized material is three loose sheets of papers found at the residence of Sri Satyanarayan Gupta,...

Cit Vs. Bijay Iron Stores

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Cal)145

By the CourtOn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred, the following question, set out at pp. 11 and 12 of the paper books, for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that prima facie evidence of non-disclosure of income does not absolve the department from the responsibility of proving mens rea and it is not sufficient to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1984-85. The assessee-firm consists of two partners and it is carrying on business in iron and steel sheets. On 30-3-1984, the search and seizure was carried out in the business and residential premises of the partners and certain books and loose papers had been seized at the time of search. Apart from the papers and other materials, the relevant part of the seized material is 3 loose sheets of papers found at the residence of Sri Satyanarayan Gu...

Smt. Krishna Banerjee Vs. Bhanu Bikash Bandyopadhyay

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2001Cal154

Joytosh Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas(S) on 1-8-1989 in Matrimonial Suit No. 32 of 1987 by which the learned Court below dissolved the marriage between the parties of the suit underthe Hindu Marriage Act, by a decree of divorce. The said suit was filed by the husband/respondent on 7th of October, 1985 on the allegations of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff/ respondent is as follows :--The marriage of the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 9th February, 1982. At the time of the marriage wife /appellant was residing with her father at Udaipur, Rajasthan where she was born and brought up. During their stay at the official quarters provided by Durgapur Steel Plant after the marriage, the wife/appellant showed unusual habits and temperament and behaved with the husband/ respon...

Satya Brata Bhunia Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT494(HC)

A.K. Banerjee, J.1. This is a most unfortunate case where the writ petitioner's grievance could not resolved by this Court for last 19 years. It appears from records that by virtue of an interim order, the writ petitioner was allowed to draw retiral benefits without prejudice to his rights and contentions and only due to intervention of this Court the writ petitioner could get his retiral benefits from the respondent authorities as per their calculation.2. Today the writ petition has come up before me for final hearing. The main issue involved herein is whether the writ petitioner could be treated as a trained teacher by virtue of Government order dated 28th February 1976 read with another Government Order dated 21st April 1976.3. The relevant portion of the said two Government orders are relevantfor consideration and is quoted below.'Dated Calcutta, the 28th February, 1975. Existing untrained teachers of aided Secondary schools above 40 years of age and with five year's experience in ...