Kolkata Court January 2002 Judgments

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Birkmyre Export Co. (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)255ITR72(Kol.)

1. These four appeals are by the Revenue against the orders deleting the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer under Sections 271(1)(c), 273(2)(b), 271B and 271(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that the orders of penalty were barred by limitation.Last date for imposition of penalty 31-1-1992Belated appeal against quantum filed on 22-3-1993Appeal not admitted and dismissed as barred by limitation 22-5-1996 3. The assessee's contention is that the time limit for passing order of penalty has expired on January 31, 1992, being six months from the end of the month in which the proceedings were initiated on July 2, 1991. The extended period of limitation in the case of filing of the appeal, it is submitted was not available to the Department as the first time of six months had already expired on January 31, 1992, and the appeal was filed belatedly much after the date on March 22, 1993, and that too was not admitted and dismissed as barred limitation by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Birkmyre Export Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

1. These four appeals are by the Revenue against the order deleting the penalties levied by the AO under Sections 271(1)(c), 273(2)(b), 271B and 271(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that the orders of penalty were barred by limitation.3. The assessee's contention is that, the time-limit for passing order of penalty has expired on 31st Jan., 1992, being 6 months from the end of the month in which the proceedings, were initiated on 2nd July, 1991. The extended period of limitation in the case of filing of the appeal, it is submitted, was not available to the Department as the first time-limit of 6 months had already expired on 21st Jan., 1992 and the appeal was filed belatedly much after the date on 22nd March, 1993, and that too was not admitted and dismissed as barred by limitation by CIT(A) on 22nd May, 1996, learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the time-limit having already expired could not be revived by the subsequent act of filing an appeal by the assessee under Section 2...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Madhusudan Das and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]254ITR581(Cal)

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated March 27, 1996--Madhusudhan Das v. Appropriate Authority of Income-tax : [1997]223ITR351(Cal) , passed by a learned single judge of this court whereby the learned single judge disposed of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short).The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition may be summarised as under :(a) Madhusudhan Das, the owner of the property in dispute, that is, No. 18, Dent Mission Road, Calcutta-23, executed a registered deed of trust on June 4, 1988, appointing the writ petitioners as the trustees with power to transfer the property. The entire premises are under the occupation of the premises tenants. (b) On December 8, 1994, the said trustees entered into an agreement for sale with Webstar Industries Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 4, in this appeal, at the consideration of Rs. 33,50,000 (rupees thirty three lakhs fifty thousa...

Ashutosh Das and ors. Vs. Smt. Dhirarani Nandan and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)1CALLT582(HC),2002(1)CHN566

A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment and decree of the lower Court whereby their suit for specific performance was dismissed. The agreement was entered into by and between the plaintiffs and the first three defendants, being mother and two daughters. It appears that the common agent of both sides was one Sushil Kumar Dutta, husband of Mira, one of the daughters. Since the filing of the appeal the mother Tara Sundari has expired. The agreement was oral, and was entered into in May 1977. For rendering his services the son-in-law, Sushil Kumar Dutta was himself to get from the purchasers a sum of Rs. 10,000/- but the consideration for purchase of the land was Rs. 70,000/-. At the time of conclusion of the contract a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was paid. The agreement was still kept oral. At that time the entirety of the land was under occupation of various occupiers and tenants and some suits were also pending. In paragraph 7 of the plaint it is alleged that the plain...

Dilip Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2002(142)ELT549(Cal)

ORDERPinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. The subject matter of the writ petition is imposition of anti dumping duty imposed upon the petitioner. Under various notifications the Anti Dumping Authority has levied anti dumping duty in respect of the Styrene Butadine Co-polymer Resins KHS-68 (hereinafter referred to as the KHS-68). 2. The petitioner filed a writ application being No. 1778 of 2000 in anticipation of the imposition of the said anti dumping duties on KHS-68. No interim order was passed in that writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second writ petition being W.P. 2772 of 2000 inter alia, praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to act and proceed in accordance with law and directing the respondents to rescind, recall, cancel and/or withdraw the anti dumping duty imposed or sought to be imposed and the show cause notice dated 19th July, 2000 and the order dated 29th September, 2000 passed by the authorities and to give any further effect to th...

Ramsarup Industrial Corporation Vs. Additional Commissioner, Commercia ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)2CALLT21(HC)

Amitava Lala, J.1. Both the above writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,West Bengal under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999. At the threshold, before entering into the merit. Court enquired about the maintainability of the writ petitions before the single Bench of this Court. The very foundation of such question is based on L. Chandra Kumar's case reported in : [1997]228ITR725(SC) . The penultimate paragraph of the Judgment has given a new dimension in hearing the writ matters by a single Bench of High Court challenging the order of the taxation authority as regards levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of tax. According to the Supreme Court, the Tribunal made under Article 323B of the Constitution of Indian, is the Court of first instance as regards challenge of the above. Therefore, my reading is that the Tribunal is replacement of a single Bench of the High Court taking t...

Prasanjit Ghosh and ors. Vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)2CALLT261(HC)

A. Chakrabarti, J. 1. This writ petition was heard along with W.P. No. 19524 (W) of 2001. 47 students represented by their respective guardians filed two present writ petitions seeking relief of appearing in the Secondary Examination 2002. Facts relevant for disposal of the present proceedings are that the petitioners were students of Class IX of various schools and were unsuccessful to get promotion from class IX to Class X and were issued transfer certificates from their respective schools with endorsement 'had not passed in Class IX.' Apprehending loss of an academic year the respective guardians of the petitioners approached the teacher-in charge of Howrah Akshaya Slkshayatan who gave out to the guardians of the petitioners that if the petitioners succeed in admission test to be held by the school for admission in class X they can be admitted to the said school and would be allowed to appear in the Secondary Examination in the year 2002, if they pass the test examination. The petit...

C. Mackertich Ltd. Vs. Custodian

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]108CompCas811(Cal)

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by C. Mackertich Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and one Bijoy Kumar Kothari, director and shareholder of the petitioner-company (the said company) challenging, inter alia, various communications dated 20-11-2001, dated 26-11-2001 and also dated 5-12-2001 and 10-12-2001. 2. The case of the petitioner is that a notification dated 20-11-2001, was issued by the Mr. D.K. Tyagi, the Custodian appointed under Section 3(1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 ('the Act'). 3. From the said notification, it appears that in exercise of power under Section 3(2), the Custodian has notified certain persons and entities andissued a public notice to that effect. In the said list of persons and entities which has been disclosed in this writ petition the name of Shri Ajoy Kayan figures as the proprietor of the petitioner-company. The precise notification against Sh...

Sunil Chandra Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)2CALLT226(HC)

A. Chakrabarti, J. 1. Seeking compassionate appointment, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner who claims to be the adopted son of a group D staff in Kanua Bhawanlpur Junior High School. Malda as the adoptive father died in harness. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents raised objection to such claim on a contention that the rules do not provide for compassionate appointment in favour of adopted son.2. Considering the aforesaid contentions of the respective parties, I find that the rule permits compassionate appointment in favour of a son of the deceased employee if he dies in harness. The law as contained in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, and Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act treat the adopted son also as a son. Law in this connection has been decided in the case of Sarat Chandra Das v. Revenue Officer reported in 1994(1) CLT 395, wherein the status of an adopted son is considered in respect of deciding land ceiling and obligation unde...

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. National Coal Workers Congress Union and o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1020],(2002)IILLJ1115Cal

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner-company herein, has challenged the validity and/or legality of the award, dated February 20, 1998, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol. On a reference made to it by the Central Government by an Order No.L-22012/299/96-1 R (C-II), dated March 27, 1996 to adjudicate the following dispute:'Whether the demand of the union fordepartmentalisation of services of SriBrijnandan Kumar Rani and 119 otherworkmen (as per list enclosed) of Sk. Salim contractor in P. K. Unit of Lachipur Collieryunder Kajora Area of E.C.L, P.O.Kajorogram, District Burdwan (W.B.), isjustified? If not, what relief the workmenare entitled to ?'2. The operative portion of the award, dated February 20, 1998, reads as follows:'8. These materials placed by the union are in effect challenged and show that the contractor named Salim was engaged in carrying certain underground level works like cutting stone drifts etc. The prohibition declared under Notif...