Kolkata Court October 2002 Judgments
Graphite India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)86ITD384(Kol.)
1. This appeal is directed against order dt. 6th July, 1998, passed by learned CIT(A)-XI, Kolkata, in the matter of ascertainment of withholding tax liability from remittance made by the assessee to Mr.Frank Rusinko, an American scientist, on account of consultancy charges.2. The assessee's grievance is that the authorities below ought to have held that the remittance in question did not fasten any withholding tax liability on the assessee inasmuch as, on the peculiar facts of this case, the same is covered by the scope of expression 'independent personal services' under Article 15 of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). As a corollary to this proposition, the assessee has also assailed the action of the authorities below in holding that the remittance in question is covered by the scope of expression 'fees for included services' appearing in Article 12 of Indo-US DTAA. Although the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, these grounds are, in substance, only argume...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Aditya Vs. Smt. Minati Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Cal178,(2003)2CALLT463(HC),2004(1)CTLJ76(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. This Miscellaneous appeal arises out of an order No. 24 dated 11th October, 2001 passed by the Learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 66 of 2000, rejecting the application for appointment of receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on contest.The History :2. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5) for partition and injunction as against the defendant Nos. 1 to 12 (Respondent Nos. 6 to 17) alleged to be the co-sharers and the defendant No. 13 (Appellant), the developer. The developer had entered into an agreement for development in respect of the property with the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8). These defendants are claiming to be the exclusive owners of the suit property. In the suit on the prayer of the plaintiffs, the Learned Trial Court upon an application for injunction passed an order of maintaining status quo in respect of the nature an...
Tag this Judgment!First Land Acquisition Collector and ors. Vs. Daulat Singh Surana and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)CHN376
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 1996, passed by a learned single Judge on the respondents' writ petition, which had been registered in this court as Civil Order No. 13522 (W) of 1995.2. By the impugned judgment and order, the notification under Section 4 dated 13th December, 1994, and the declaration under Section 6 dated 23th June, 1995, published and made by the Government of West Bengal, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act 1 of 1894'), in respect of a piece of land, comprising the western portion of premises No. 4, Pretoria Street, Calcutta and measuring more or less 0.0988 hectare (0.2423 acre), were set aside; with a direction upon the appellants to give back possession of the said land to the respondents.3. The reasons for setting aside the Section 4 notification were: the publication thereof, having not been preceded by handing over vacant possession of the land, by the Government to the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Shew Kishan Agarwalla and Etc. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1866
ORDERS.P. Talukdar, J.1. Four applications under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed being numbered as CRR 1110 of 2002, CRR 1111 of 2002, CRR 1112 of 2002 and CRR 1114 of 2002.2. In all the said applications prayer has been made on behalf of the respective petitioners for quashing of proceeding in case No. 63 of 2000 (T.R. No. 33 of 2002) pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, at Calcutta and all orders passed therein including the order dated 19th April, 2002 whereby the petitioner's application for dismissal of the complaint for lack of Territorial jurisdiction was dismissed.3. Similar points of facts and laws being involved and as all the said applications are directed against the same impugned order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta, the said applications have been heard at a time.4. Grievances of the petitioners may briefly be stated as follows :--5. In or about the year 1941, Mr. Ganga B...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Roy and anr. Vs. Snehasis Bagchi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)CHN361
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The instant application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against order 9th July, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench of City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 783 of 1998.2. Opposite party, Sri Snehasis Bagchi, filed a suit for defamation and consequential reliefs against the present two petitioners. In the said suit it was alleged that the plaintiff was appointed by defendant No. 2 as Assistant Caretaker on a temporary post on 10.9.1993. On 2nd February,,, 1994 the plaintiff was transferred from the Office at Beliaghata to the Office of the Bureau of Investigation at 10, Madan Street, Calcutta-700 072 vide office order No. 15665 dated 25.1.1994. While working as Assistant Caretaker plaintiff detected certain malpractices and raised protests incurring displeasure of the Darwans and Night Guards. In the interest of the office administration the plaintiff couragiously put up the matter before defendant No. 1 over and again si...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Nilkantha Mahato and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3566
Malay Kumar Basu, J.1. Both these appeals having arisen out of the same judgment and they involving common questions of law and fact, will be governed by this single judgment.2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 17th April, 1989 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 52/1985 (S.T.3/1988) of that Court whereunder the Ld. Sessions Judge found all the accused persons guilty of an offence under Section 148, IPC and convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment each for three years, but he found the other charges against the accused persons not established and accordingly he acquitted them of such charges. The convicts have preferred the appeal being C.R.A. No. 202/89 against the first part of the order, that is, against the said order of conviction and sentence, whereas the State has preferred the Appeal No. G.A. 29/1989 against the second part of the order, that is, order of acquittal of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishanlal and Sons (Udyog) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Cal)297,[2003]260ITR481(Cal)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J. 1. This is a reference matter entertained by us on Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at a time before Section 260A got introduced into it.2. The appellant-Department felt aggrieved in this case with the order of the Tribunal since it accepted the annual letting value of certain premises owned by the assessee-company at the figure of Rs. 10,800.3. The Assessing Officer had fixed the annual letting out value at Rs. 54,000 basing his decision upon the municipal valuation of the property upon which municipal rates were to be calculated at a specified fraction or percentage.4. The assessment years involved in this case are 1983-84 to 1986-87.5. The assessee's case on the facts was that from as early as 1962, the annual letting value of the property was Rs. 10,800 only. That was because of a duly registered lease for 30 years which had been executed in that year in respect of the property.6. No doubt it is an admitted position that the lease was executed in favour...
Tag this Judgment!Bidyut Saha Vs. State of W.B.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2678
ORDERDebiprasad Sengupta, J.1. Present revisional application has been directed against an order dated 24-5-2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar in G.R. Case No. 56/2001 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that on completion of investigation of Kotwali (Cooch Behar) P.S. Case No. 57 dated 22-2-2001 under Section 302/34, IPC., police submitted charge-sheet on 18-5-2002 against accused Bibekananda Saha and Binapani Saha under Section 306, IPC. In the said charge-sheet the investigating Officer recommended discharge of the present petitioner, namely Bidyut Saha. The learned Magistrate after considering the materials in the case diary and hearing the A.P.P. was satisfied that sufficient materials are there against the said accused Bidyut Saha and there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against him. Accordingly the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the Investigating Officer for discharge of Bidyut Saha and directed the S...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Cal)517,[2003]260ITR67(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This writ petition is made by an individual who claims to be the sole proprietor of a business under the name and style of 'Pratik Food Products', at No. 58, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-700 071. He is residing at a flat being No. 9C/9D, 87, Southern Avenue, Calcutta-700 029. 2. The petitioner alleged that on September 24, 2001, the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) along with other officers of the Income-tax Department initiated a search at the place of the petitioner's business at No. 58, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-700 071. The search commenced at 8 a.m. of the day and ended at 1.15 a.m. of the next day. Therefore, no business was held on that very day. Respondent No. 1 prepared an inventory of bank accounts, demat accounts, foreign exchange, machineries, shares, finished goods, raw materials and packaging materials. They had seized Rs. 4,50,000 in cash, bunch of loose sheets, computer (C.P.U.) print outs and some documents relevant for prepari...
Tag this Judgment!Kejriwal Enterprises and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Cal)305,[2003]260ITR341(Cal)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J. 1. Three assessment years are involved in this appeal under Section 260A which we have entertained. Those are assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The facts which give rise to the appeals are briefly as follows.2. The assessee-partnership firm, got into a joint venture collaboration agreement with a company of U. S. S. R., at a time just before the disintegration of the United Soviet Russia. 3. The agreement was in writing and the basic terms of the agreement were, that a company would be floated by the two parties, and capital would be contributed by the assessee to the extent of 60 per cent. and the Russian party to the extent of 40 per cent. 4. The proposed share capital which the parties had envisaged in the beginning was about Rs. 5.27 crores.5. However, soon thereafter they reduced their target to about Rs. 3.68 crores. 6. Between March 31, 1990, and December 21, 1990, the assessee-firm contributed to the joint venture company, viz., Tropical Fruits In...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »