Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)79TTJ(Kol.)14
1. These three appeals relate to the same assessee and arise out of common set of facts. We, therefore, deem it expedient to dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order, Out of these three appeals which are subject-matter of this order, ITA No 103/Cal/2001, filed by the assessee, and ITA No 237/Cal/2001, filed by the Revenue, are cross-appeals against the order dt. 28th Nov., 2000, passed by the CIT(A)-I Kolkata in the matter of order under Section 201(1A) r/w Section 194C of the IT Act, 1961. ITA No 238/Cal/01 pertains to penalty under Section 221 in the matter of same deduction issue. We will take up all the three appeals together.2. In order to properly appreciate controversy requiring our adjudication, it is necessary to take a careful look at rather peculiar facts leading to this litigation before us. ITC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ITC) entered into an agreement with Pak~Indo-Lanka Committee (hereinafter referred to as PILCOM), organisers of 1996 World Cup Crick...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR52(Cal)
P.K. Samanta, J.1. In this revisional application the plaintiff/ petitioners have raised a short but important question as to whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the said Act) filed initially before the District Judge could be transferred by him to a Court of Additional District Judge for its disposal. 2. The facts giving rise to this civil revisional application are that the plaintiff-petitioners and the defendant-opposite party constituted a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The said partnership agreement contained an arbitration clause as under : 'Any dispute or difference arising between the partners whether during or after the determination of the partnership in relation to any matter whatsoever touching the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory notification thereof for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : I(2004)BC297,(2003)3CALLT127(HC)
D.K. Seth, J. Facts: 1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th January, 1993 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 6th Bench in Title Suit No. 2358 of 1981. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and partition against the appellants. The suit property stands in the name of the defendant No. 1. It is claimed that the property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 and husband of the defendant No. 1, the mother. The father purchased the property in the benami of the other (defendant No. 1). The father had business. Out of the income of such business, the father acquired several properties including the one in dispute. It was attempted to show that the father had sufficient means and the mother had none.1.1. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 had contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. According to them, the defendant No. 1 mother purchased the property out of her stridhan. The father of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2004]135TAXMAN526(Cal)
ORDER7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree dated 6-1-1993 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 6th Bench in Title Suit No. 2358 of 1981 is hereby set aside. The Title Suit No. 2358 of 1981 is hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.J. Banerjee, J. - I agree.Appeal succeeds....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)3CALLT505(HC)
D.P. Sengupta, J. 1. In the present application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of a proceeding being G.R. Case No. 3990 of 2001 arising out of section R-1 (Beniapukur P.S.) Case No. 436 dated 8.12.2001 under Sections 420/120B/341 /201 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas.2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sanatan Kundu the aforesaid ease was registered with Beniapukur Police Station and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police against the accused petitioners under Sections 420/120B/341/201 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The allegation made in the FIR is that the complainant Sanatan Kundu was the sole proprietor of the Carnation Enterprises, which was subsequently converted into a Private Limited Company and was renamed as Carnation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., wherein the accused No. 1 was inducted as a Director alongwith the complainant. The complainant Sanatan Kundu and his brother Madan Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)78TTJ(Kol.)646
1. In this appeal, directed against CIT(A)'s order for the asst. yr.1998-99, solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act, 1961. This issue is set out in a narrow compass of undisputed facts and involves only a question of legal interpretation.2. The assessee-company has a one hundred per cent export oriented unit (EOU), known as 'Instant Tea Division', in respect of which exemption under Section 10B was claimed for this year, even though the assessee had already availed "the benefit of Section 10B for five consecutive years and Section 10B(3), as it stood in the relevant assessment year and in fact prior to the amendment w.e.f. 1st April, 1999, provided that "the profits and gains referred to in Sub-section (1) shall not be included in the total income of assessee in respect of any five consecutive years". The assessee's claim was that in view of amendment in Section 10B, w.e.f. 1st April, 1999...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2003(97)FLR728],(2003)IILLJ590Cal
Samaresh Banerjea, J.1. Since in the present appeal only a question of law is involved, the parties did not choose to file affidavits and the appeal itself has been heard out by consent of parties after dispensation of all formalities.2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated May 8, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record produced before us, we are, however, of the view that the trial Court has fallen into error in holding that the Calcutta High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter.4. In the writ petition the appellant/writ petitioner who admittedly, was an employee of Eastern-Coalfield Ltd. and wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)87ITD457(Kol.)
1. This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97 is directed against the order dated 22-3-2001 of Commissioner of Income-tax, W.B.-II, Kolkata passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. The appellant is a company engaged in growing, manufacturing and sale of tea and manufacturing of fertilizers, tobacco trading, rice export, export of purchased tea and purchased packet tea operations.For assessment year 1996-97, the assessee had filed a return of income on 2-12-1996 declaring income of Rs. 7,49,86,590. The return was originally processed under Section 143(1)(a) and intimation issued on 7-10-1996. On 31-3-1998 the appellant had filed a revised return declaring income of Rs. 6,78,35,700. This return was also processed under Section 143(1B) on 24-8-1998. Subsequently, the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny for the purposes of assessment under Section 143(3). Assessment under Section 143(3) was made by the Assessing Officer after scrutiny vide order dated 31-3-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : II(2003)BC597,(2003)3CALLT107(HC),[2003]114CompCas367(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the original writ petition. In the original writ petition there are twofold prayers. The first is writ of mandamus for the purpose of declaring the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act of 1993 and the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, as unconstitutional, ultra vires and null and void. The second is the determination of an issue in respect of a case pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. As regards the first point the Supreme Court has already held that the Act and Rules are intra vires, therefore the writ petition becomes infructuous to that extent. The writ petition was of the year, 1995 which was placed under the heading 'old matters' before the court for expeditious disposal due to long pendency. During such period only on August 1, 2002, the present application was filed before the court. In the application for amendment I find there is no amendment of the prayers but amendment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)3CALLT100(HC),2005(1)CHN586,2005(30)PTC272(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. The plaintiff is the owner of the registered trade marks 'Odonil', 'Odopic', 'Odomos' both label and word under the common Classes-5, 3, 9, 11, 21, and it has also applied for further registration between the years 1985 and 2001, for the word 'Odo'. This action has been taken against infringement and passing of by the defendant who uses the name and mark 'Odoja' in their products which are under same class. With the word 'Odo' the plaintiff claims that the aforesaid registrations were effected at different point of time ranging from 24th August, 1962 to 26th February, 1990. Admittedly the defendant's mark is not a registered one and it has merely applied for registration of its mark on or about 27th of March, 2000. The plaintiff claims, that it was the first in using of the word 'Odo' in its trademarks for commercial purpose. 2. The defendant in his affidavit in opposition has taken defence that the word 'Odo' is a generic term and used by all the traders a...
Tag this Judgment!