Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)85ITD400Cal
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 25th May, 1995 passed by the learned CIT(A) -Central II, Calcutta, in the matter of order under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 1989-90.2. In ground Nos. 1 and 2,assessee is aggrieved of CIT(A)'s 'not excluding Rs. 1,96,28,861 transferred from - Reserve to Profit & Loss Account for the purpose of computation of book profit under Section 115J' of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. This ground of appeal relates to assessee's claim that, in computation of book profit under Section 115J of the Act, a sum of Rs. 9,99,68,529, which has been credited to the profit and loss account, out of transfer from reserve created on revaluation of fixed assets, is required to be excluded from the computation of book profit. The break up of this transfer from reserve is as follows :(i) Reserve on account of valuation of fixed assets made in earlier years Rs. 8,03,39,668(ii) Reserve on acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)85ITD288(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), dt. 10th July, 1998, for the asst. yr. 1995-96. The grievances of the assessee are as follow : A. For that the order appealed against is bad in law as well as on facts. B. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in summarily confirming the action of the learned Addl. Director of IT (Exemption) I, Calcutta, who had denied the exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act and determined the surplus figure at Rs. 31,17,008 which has been subjected to tax. C. For that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the appellant trust which had always been allowed exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act while there was no change of whatsoever nature in the objects of the trust and the subject-matter has been considered favourably by the jurisdictional High Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society came into bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)2CALLT27(HC),[2002(94)FLR1204],(2002)IIILLJ127Cal
P.K. Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The Petitioners have challenged the decision of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation regarding coverage of the establishment of the petitioners under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 in the present writ petition.2. The Petitioner No. 1 as metallurgical engineer having specialized knowledge of metallurgical testing established a firm under the name and style of Petitioner No. 2 for the purpose of carrying on professional work in relating to metallurgical testing of sample of finished goods received from various organisations. It has been stated by the petitioners that the nature of work carried on by the petitioners is purely of testing, inspection, research and consultancy. The said firm of the petitioners is registered under the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963 as a 'commercial establishment' and the nature of the business shown is of testing of metals and minerals.3. The Deputy Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation informe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2002Cal186,(2002)3CALLT324(HC)
ORDERPranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The Petitioner herein has challenged the notice issued by the Prodhan, Purandarpur Gram Panchayat. Birbhum whereby the said Prodhan directed the petitioner to stop the work of construction at the first floor. According to the petitioner,the said Prodhan had issued the aforesaid notice wrongfully, illegally and in violation of the specific provision of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after taking loan from the Bribhum Zilla Parishad, petitioner constructed one storied residential house on the plot in question and since then petitioner has been making regular payment of land and building tax to the Purandarpur Gram Panchayat. The receipts granted by the Purandarpur Gram Panchayat upon accepting the said building tax from the petitioner has been annexed to the Writ Petition.3. On 15th November, 1999, petitioner submitted an application under Section 23 of the Wes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2003)BC37
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.11.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal No. 1. Calcutta, in original application No. 51 of 2001, Industrial Investment Bank of India v. Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. and Ors.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to present appeal as is apparent from the paper book and the judgments filed with paper book are the Industrial Investment Bank of India, a company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 9, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta, hereinafter referred as ICCIB only, filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred as Act only against Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. a Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 225, A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta, 700 020 hereinafter referred as a company only and others for recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. Two appeals being 8 of 2001 and 9 of 2001 have been heard in analogous. The respondent United Bank of India filed claim cases against the present appellants of both the appeals for realisation of certain sum of money. The Appeal No. 8 of 2001 arose out of O. A. No.194/1998 while Appeal No. 9 of 2001 arose out of O.A. No. 195/1998. The impugned order is dated 14.12.2000 being order No. 7 of the respective claim cases. The facts of the claim cases as appears from the applications made before the claim's Tribunal which were disposed of by the similar order were also the same. Identical order were passed in both cases.2. The case of the appellants in both the matters are that they instituted suits before the High Court in the month of June, 1998. It is alleged that as acounterblast, the claim cases were filed against them on 28.8.1998 with inflated claims. There was an interim order of the stay of the claim case which was vacated only on 5.12.2000 and the impugned order was passed on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)2CALLT440(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This revisional application is at the instance of a guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act and is directedagainst Order No. 13 dated January 16, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Asansol in Act VIII Case No. 1 of 2001/13 of 2001 thereby rejecting an application filed by the petitioner praying for permission to give the minor in adoption to the opposite parties. 2. There is no dispute that the present petitioner is the paternal grandfather of the minor and after the death of both the parents of the minor, on the application of the present petitioner under Section 8 read with Section 10 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, he was appointed as guardian. 3. The, aforesaid application for guardianship was filed by the petitioner in the Court of learned District Judge, Burdwan thereby giving rise to Act VIII Case No. 12 of 2001 which on transfer to the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Asansol was re-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)1CALLT55(HC),2002LC804(Calcutta),2002(143)ELT259(Cal)
A. Lala, J. 1. This writ petition was made by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Calcutta-II Commissionarate, challenging the two orders passed by the CEGAT on 5th of March, 1998 and 18th of September. 1998.2. From the first order it appears that there was a difference of opinion in between judicial and technical members of the tribunal when the matter was referred to consider by a third member and such order of the tribunal is dated 18th of September, 1998.3. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the dealers of steel materials. They purchase large number of steel materials from the companies like TISCO and SAIL. They pay their usual excise duties. They sell it to small traders who, in turn, entitled for benefit under MODVAT scheme made for themselves. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not at all entitled for such benefit. Good, bad, indifferent, Commissioner of Central Excise adversely held against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and imposed penalty upon themselves. However, being aggrieved b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)3CALLT264(HC),2002(3)CHN381,2003(90)ECC885,2002(142)ELT33(Cal),[2002]255ITR140(Cal)
ORDERAshim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - Short question involved in this writ petition is whether the demurrage paid by the consignee for delayed unloading can attract customs duty in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.2. The writ petitioner imported a consignment from abroad by M.V. Amastasi vide bill of lading appearing at pages 25-27 of the writ petition. The said vessel arrived at Calcutta. However, there had been delay in discharging the cargo at the port for which the writ petitioner had to pay demurrage to the Port Trust Authority. The customs authority, while assessing the duty, included the demurrage charged by the Port Trust Authority and paid by the writ petitioner. According to the customs department the demurrage was a part of the freight and was liable to be paid as additional value of the goods. Since the value of the goods attracted duty the writ petitioner was liable to pay duty in accordance with the assessment made by the authority....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)85ITD162Cal
1. This appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the order dt.14th April, 1998, passed by the CIT(A)-XV, Calcutta, in the matter of order under Section 195(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), passed by the AO directing the assessee to deduct tax at source at the rate of 35 per cent from payments made to Mr. I.G.O.Seeberger, an Austria based paper consultant, learned CIT(A), vide the above referred order, held that no taxes were required to be deducted from the aforesaid payment. Revenue is aggrieved that the CIT(A) erred in holding that no tax is required to be deducted under Section 195 of the Act from the aforesaid payment.2. ITC Limited (hereinafter referred to as the assessee-tax deductor') engaged the services of one Mr. I.G.O. Seeberger (hereinafter referred to as the 'Austrian consultant') for the following objectives : "1.1 that the consultant assist ITC-TTD in continuous upgradation of the quality of the products to international standards ...
Tag this Judgment!