Kolkata Court May 2002 Judgments

Rakesh Kumar Shaw Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]257ITR268(Cal)

Dilip Kumar Seth, J. 1. Facts and submissions : Aggrieved by an order passed under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposing penalty on account of violation of acceptance of loan in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 prohibited-under Section 269SS, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 246 of the Income-tax Act. He has also made an application under Section 249, Sub-section (3), for admission of the appeal, which was preferred beyond the limitation provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 249 . This has since been dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. This order has since been challenged before this court on various grounds, particularly, on the ground that the order is perverse and this court should interfere with the same. Relying on Section 273B, he contends that the failure to comply with Section 269SS was supported by reasonable cause and as such no penalty could be imposed upon the petitioner.2. Mr. Shome, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,...

Dulal Chandra Chattopadhyay Vs. Basudeb Bhattacharjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)1CALLT160(HC),[2001]256ITR305(Cal)

A.K. Bisi, J. 1. The instant revision application preferred at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff is directed against order No. 189 dated 26.11.99 passed by Shri N.C. Chakraborty the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Alipore in Miscellaneous case No. 29 of 1996. By the impugned order the learned Court below allowed the Miscellaneous case arising out of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by defendant No. 27 presently O.P. No. 1 as applicant for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed on 8.12.95 in Title Suit No. 197 of 1985 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to the O.Ps in the said Miscellaneous case. 2. The facts leading to the instant revision may briefly be stated thus. The present petitioner/plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 197 of 1985 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge (now designed as Civil Judge Senior Division), 1st Court, Alipore and the suit was decreed in preliminary form on contest with cost a...

Biren Pramanik and ors., Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)1CALLT470(HC)

G.C. De, J.1. In all these four revisional applications (CRR 506/1996, CRR 423 /1997, CRR 302/1997, CRR 303/1997) a common question was raised as to whether cognizance could be taken on the charge-sheet filed on the basis of investigation made beyond the time limit fixed by Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended in the State of West Bengal by the Code of Criminal Procedure (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1988 which came into force with effect from 2nd May, 1989.2. It was contended on behalf of the State that in view of the principle adopted by the Apex Court in Durgesh Saha v. Bimal Chandra Saha (1996 Cri LJ 1137), the Court below was justified in taking the cognizance on the basis of the chargesheet. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed reliance on another Division Bench judgment of the Apex Court reported in : [1993]3SCR570 (State of West Bengal v. Falguni Dutta and Anr.) in support of the contention that the investiga...

Golam Momen Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Dilip Kumar Seth, J.Submission on behalf of the petitioner :1. On a premise of preferring an appeal against an order of assessment, the petitioner had prayed for stay of operation of the demand by an application made on February 4, 2002, being annexure 'P-5'. This was rejected by an order dated March 8, 2002, on the ground that appropriate opportunity was given to the petitioner under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the time of assessment. This order has since been challenged on the ground that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing and that the opportunity given at the time of assessment and the opportunity to be given for the purpose of staying the demand till the disposal of appeal are something different. The Income-tax Act does not provide for any provision under which stay could be obtained from the appellate authority. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, under the provision of Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner should b...

Asim Mukhopadhyay Vs. Sourindra Nath Roy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2002CriLJ3325

ORDERD.K. Seth, J.Facts :1. The petitioner was a LD Clerk working in the Health Department. Before he had entered into the service, he had obtained a Diploma in Engineering. Therefore, he had made a representation on 24th of November, 1978 that he should be given the benefit of the scale of a diploma holder Engineer and be treated as Sub-Assistant Engineer. This writ petition was disposed of on 20th August, 1991. In the said order, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of being treated as Sub-Assistant Engineer in terms of Notification No. 10303-F dated November 19, 1974 and the Rule was thus made absolute. It was further directed that the petitioner will get the scale of Rs. 425-1050/- from the date of presentation of the writ petition in 1986 including arrears of other allowances, but he will not be entitled to special pay and other allowances as the Sub-Assistant Engineers are entitled from 1st April, 1978 onwards in terms of Memo. No. 4175-F, dated 4th April, ...

Saturday Club Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)85ITD224(Kol.)

1. In this appeal, against the CIT(A)'s order dated 2-11-1998 sustaining penalty under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,solitary grievance of the assessee is as follows : That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 50,400 levied under Section 272A(2)(c) by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax...2. Briefly, the facts. The assessee, a social club, in existence since 1875, is a non-profit making organisation aimed at promoting social, cultural and sporting activities. It is one of well-known clubs hi Calcutta rendering valuable services to the society at large and, in particular, to its Members. The assessee-club is a tenant and when the assessee-club paid rent for the hired premises, it did not deduct the tax at source under Section 194-1 of the Act, which was brought into effect since 30th June, 1994 i.e., within the financial year in appeal before us. This lapse was point...

State Vs. Urmi Ghoshal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2002Cal192,(2003)2CALLT151(HC)

A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. Both the appeals and the connected public interest litigation and a writ petition involve common question of law, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The State has filed two appeals. The first appeal being MAT No. 2392 of 2000 (State v. Urmi Ghosal) has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 26th June, 2000, whereby the writ Petition No. 5014 (W) of 2000 (Urmi Ghosal v. State) was allowed by setting aside the order of compounding. The second appeal being APOT No. 627 of 2000 (Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Md. Noor Alam) has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police against the same order whereby W.P. No. 1797 of 2000 (Noor Alam v. State of West Bengal) was disposed of. The other two writ applications being W.P. No. 2249 (W) of 2001 and W.P. No. 13168 (W) of 2000 (Public interest litigation) have been filed by Snehasish Bhowmick and Dilip Kumar Sil.3. For convenient disposal of the matters, the facts of...

Debabrata Mondal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)1CALLT16(HC)

S. Barman Roy, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 13th Court, Alipore, South 24-parganas convicting eleven appellants, namely, Debabrata Mondol, Manabendra Mondol, Khakan Naskar, Kamal Naskar, Santosh Naskar, Bibhuti Naiya, Prasad Naiya, Birupaksha Mondal, Hrishikesh Mondol, Tarun Naskar and Swapan Naiya under Sections 302/149, 148 and 448/149 IPC and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. for further one year each in respect of their conviction under Section 302/149 IPC. They were also sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment/fine in respect of their convictions for lesser offences.2. Prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 1 Smt. Kajal Naiya being the mother of two deceased persons, Kartick Naiya and Ganesh Naiya lodged a written complaint before a police officer of Joynagar P. S. when she came to village Maldari. Complaint ...

Gour Mohan Manna and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)1CALLT140(HC)

P.K. Ray, J.1. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties. It appears that a question of maintainability as has been raised by the learned advocate for the respondents to be dealt without going to the merits of the matter.2. This writ application has been filed by the organising teaching and non-teaching staff of classes IX and X, which are unapproved classes relating to an approved Junior High School. The impugned decision in this writ application is the decision passed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education rejecting the prayer of upgradation of the school as filed by the Managing Committee of the Junior High School in terms of the circular letters of the Government. The Managing Committee of the school has not come forward challenging the decision whereby upgradation of the school to the High School was rejected. Under Section 19A(3)(c) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') the Executive Committee of th...

Ananda Prasad Dey and ors. and Shyamapada Mondal and ors. Vs. the Stat ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)3CALLT195(HC),2002(3)CHN257

J.K. Biswas, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed against two final orders both dated 19th August 1991 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in two writ petitions which were registered as C.R. No. 15363(W) of 1980 (Ananda Prasad Dey and Ors. v. The State of W.B. and Ors.) and C.R. No. 15364(W) of 1980 (Shyamapada Mondal and Ors. v. The State of W.B. and Ors.).2. Since on identical relevant facts common questions of law have arisen in both the appeals, we propose to decide them by this common judgment. 3. Appellants are residents of two villages located within the jurisdiction of same police station and post office of the District Murshidabad. They are owners of agricultural lands. In 1975 settlement operations in respect of their lands were completed by the Revenue Officer upto the stage of attestation of the record-of-rights. After said attestation the Revenue Officer circulated a general notice dated 21st August 1979 notifying that in terms of Sections 51 and 21B of the West Ben...