Kolkata Court January 2003 Judgments
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Kol.)409
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dt. 28th Sept., 2000, passed by the CIT(A)-V, Kolkata, in the matter of order under Section 154 r/w Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, passed by the Jt CIT, Special Range 15, Kolkata, for the asst yr 1992-93.2. By way of impugned order under Section 154, the AO has held that the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source from the payments termed as 'commission', though, according to the assessee, in the nature of trade discount, sales incentives or bonus on achieving the targeted sales. The AO has further held that as the commission credited by the assessee, to the dealers, amounted to Rs. 92,81,460, the assessee is liable to pay the amount of tax non-deducted which, worked out at the rate of 10 per cent of the amount of commission, comes to Rs. 9,28,146. The AO further held that the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) on the aforesaid amount which worked out to further Rs. 9,74,50...
Tag this Judgment!Barun Kumar Goswami and anr. Vs. Arun Kumar Goswami and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Cal132,(2003)2CALLT165(HC)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. The appellant is the Defendant No. 4 in a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for cancellation of the deed of partition dated 31st July 1968 and for a declaration that the premises No. 12A. Lakshmi Narayan Mukherjee Lane and 12B, Anukul Mukherjee road are 'Debattar Properties' not liable to partition. There is alternative prayer also in the said suit.2. The appeal is directed against an order dated 21st December 2001 by which the learned Judge of the First court after hearing the parties was pleased to allow an application for recall of the previous order dated 30th November 1999. The order dated 30th November 1999 was passed by the learned Judge admittedly on mentioning when the suit was not the list. By the said order, the learned Judge, upon hearing the submission made by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 declared that the suit stands abated as a whole and as such the suit was dismissed and all interim orders stood automatically vacated in view of the...
Tag this Judgment!Entedee Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR465(Cal)
1. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a). 2. This appeal raises an interesting question of law as to whether an appeal would lie from an order of the learned single Judge dismissing an application made under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 3. In the instant case such an application was made by the appellant herein and the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge by his order dated 21st August, 2002, which is the subject matter of the appeal. 4. From the reasons given by the learned Judge in dismissing the application filed by the appellant it appears that the learned Judge was swayed by the fact that the learned Arbitrator had delayed the arbitration proceedings inordinately and that 92 sittings had already been held before the application was made for extension of time. 5. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Samaddar submitted that the very reasons given by the learned Judge in dismissing the application, ought to have prompted him to allow the application. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Kumar Damani Vs. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN723(Cal)
D.K Seth, J. In the present case, the question referred to is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,14,170 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 196l?'2. Mr. Khaitan, learned counsel for the assessee, urges that the learned Tribunal was not justified in adding the amount at the hands of the assessee while computing the income of the assessee. In as much as, the seizure was made from two persons, namely, Bimal Kumar Damani, the assessee and Gopal Das Damani Separate seizure lists were issued. Therefore, according to him, the possession of the amount recovered belonged to two different persons, i.e., US $ 24,500 to the assessee and US $ 23,200 to Gopal Das Damani. Though the assessee had not specified any amount anywhere but still then when he addressed a letter referring to the amount seized from him, that cannot be treated to be an admission t...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Kumar Damani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003]261ITR635(Cal)
D.K. seth J.1. In the present case, the question referred is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,14,170 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Mr. Khaitan, learned counsel for the assessee, urges that the learned Tribunal was not justified in adding the amount at the hands of the assessee while computing the income of the assessee, inasmuch as, the seizure was made from two persons, namely, Bimal Kumar Damani, the assessee, and Gopal Das Damani. Separate seizure lists were issued. Therefore, according to him, the possession of the amount recovered belonged to two different persons, i.e., US $ 24,500 to the assessee and US $ 23,200 to Gopal Das Damani. Though the assessee had not specified any amount anywhere but still then when he addressed a letter referring to the amount seized from him, that cannot be treated to be an admissio...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Hari Singhania (individual) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Cal)334,[2003]261ITR516(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. An application for interim order in terms of prayer (f) of the petition has since been asked for in connection with this appeal. A preliminary objection has since been raised by Mr. Mallick that this writ petition has become infructuous in view of the omission of Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules which been challenged in this writ petition as ultra vires, invalid and inoperative. In elaborating his submission, he contended that the appellant had prayed for a declaration that Rule 2 is inapplicable to the case of the appellant and ultra vires in view of Section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. On this ground, a prayer is made in the writ petition for cancelling, withdrawing, recalling and rescinding the said Rule 2 and the notices issued to the appellant under Rule 2 which were sought to be quashed. According to Mr. Mallick, as soon as Rule 2 is omitted, the challenge to the vires of Rule 2 remains no more germane to the issue.2. Dr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemcrown (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR177(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. Two questions have since been referred to this court in this reference case under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, namely : --R. A. No. 590 (Cal) of 1997 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that part of sales promotion expenses or sales seminar expenses of Rs. 2,03,846 including, inter alia, on account of supply of food and drinks to employees and customers, was business expenditure and an allowable deduction from the assessee's business income and not in the nature of entertainment expenditure disallowable under Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act ?'R. A. No. 574 (Cal) of 1997 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal correctly applied the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) in confirming the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital in the amount of Rs. 3,05,444 ?'The first question :2. The first question is whether the expen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemcrown (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)133
ORDERD.K. SETH, J.1. Two questions have since been referred to this Court in this reference case under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, namely :R.A. No. 590 (Cal) 1997'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that part of sales promotion expenses or sales seminar expenses of Rs. 2,03,846 including inter alia, on account of supply of food and drinks to employees and customers, was business expenditure and an allowable deduction from assessee's business income and not in the nature of entertainment expenditure disallowable under Section 37(2A) of the IT Act ?'R.A. No. 547(Cal) 1997'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal correctly applied the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) in confirming the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital in the amount of Rs. 3,05,444 ?'The first question2. The first question is whether the expenditure on food and drinks provided to the employees and...
Tag this Judgment!Amal Kumar Sil Vs. Banku Behari De Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT518(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 29B(9) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 challenging an order dated June 29, 1990 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Kalna in H.R. Case No. 8 of 1988.2. The opposite party, Banku Behari De Chowdhury, filed a petition under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for eviction of a premises tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement. It was contended in the said application that the said opposite party along with his elder brother and the unmarried sister, Shrimati Chabi De Chowdhury, were the joint owners of the tenanted promises and the defendant was a, tenant in respect of the said premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 47/- (Rupees forty seven) only payable according to English calendar. It was contended that the said opposite party was a medical officer working with South Eastern Railway and he was posted at Kharagpur at t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Park View Properties (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)274,[2003]261ITR473(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. The question to be answered is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing the AO to compute the total income of the assessee without applying the provisions of Explanation to Section 73 when the loss in share trading exceeded the income from other sources and the loss was a loss from speculative business contrary to the finding of the Tribunal that the loss is not speculative loss ?'2. The AO had disallowed the benefit of the Explanation to Section 73 of the IT Act, 1961, to the assessee in respect of the asst. yr. 1989-90 declining to set off the loss in share dealing on the ground that this share dealing is a speculation business carried on by the assessee under Section 73(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal had reversed the said order and had allowed the benefit of the Explanation to Section 73 holding that the main source of income of the assessee consists of income from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »