Kolkata Court January 2003 Judgments
Jekay Rolling Mill Private Ltd. Vs. the Debts Recovery Tribunal and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC194,(2003)2CALLT73(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of proclamation of sale issued under the signature of the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Kolkata. 2. This application is not in form. The certified copy of the order impugned has not been annexed with the said application. Chapter V of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side) specifies the general rules of procedures. Under Rule 9 of the said chapter V of the said Rules, in the case of an application for revision, certified copy of the order to which the application relates must accompany the application. The said Rule 9 is set out below: '9. In the case of an application revision, the application shall be accompanied by certified copies of each of the following documents: (i) The Judgment, decree or order to which the application relates; (ii) If the judgment, decree or order to which the application relates was a judgment, decree or order de...
Tag this Judgment!Debapriya Guha Vs. Acit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)88ITD404(Kol.)
1. The present appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 1989-90 is directed against the order dated 20-6-2001 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of an order of assessment made under Section 144/147 of I.T.Act, 1961.2. Gr. No. 1 is directed against the order of CIT(A) in upholding the action of the A.O. in initiating the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act for the year under consideration. With respect to this ground of appeal the A.O. had seen that the return of income filed by the assessee for A.Y. under consideration was beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 139 of the Act inasmuch as the return of income was filed on 22-8-91, though as per the provisions of Section 139(4) of the Act as amended and substituted w.e.f. 1-4-89, the assessee was allowed to file the return of income at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year, being expired on 31-3-91 for the year under consideration. It was further seen by the A.O. that the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carew Phipson Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)549,[2003]260ITR668(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The question to be answered, in this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in deleting the profit of Rs. 21,02,166 under Section 41(2) and capital gains amounting to Rs. 2,06,328 by holding that the transfer was in respect of the whole of the sugar factory as a going concern ?'2. The assessee sold the whole of the sugar factory as a going concern for a total price of Rs. 53,50,000. The purchaser took over the liability of Rs. 15,90,324 and the balance Rs. 37,59,676 was shown apportioned against the various items of assets. The Assessing Officer held that the individual items of assets were sold and, therefore, the assessee was liable to profit under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'IT Act') as well as the capital gains tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the assessment order. The learned Tribunal held that the sale wa...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Translink Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Cal281
ORDERAmitava Lala, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenged two notices in the form of letters being dated 13th December, 2002 and 11th January, 2003 respectively issued by the Jute Commissioner, under Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, 20-B, Abdul Hamid Street, Kolkata-700069. The subject matter of issuance of such notices are in respect of compulsory purchase of raw jute by manufacturers of jute goods from any person or agency as may be specified by Jute Commissioner in terms of Gazette Notification No. S.O. 1160(E) dated 1-11-2002 and on the subject of direct purchase of 2,50,000 bales of 665 G.M.B.T. Twill bags by Government of Haryana against tender opened on 22-12-2002. 2. Upon scanning the first letter I find that the various departments of the food and supplies of consumer affairs of the different States including State of Haryana were informed to incorporate a suitable clause in the tender enquiry for purchase of equal quantity of raw jute from Jute Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT113(HC),[2003(97)FLR580],(2003)IILLJ1034Cal
Amitava Lala, J. 1. It appears to this Court that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, in the order impugned directed the petitioners to pay certain amount for the period March 1989 to September, 1997, and October 1997 to February 1998.2. It further appears from the figures that the claim amount is Rs. 68,43,066 and Rs. 1,94,884 respectively totalling to Rs. 70,37,950. After giving particulars of the figure derived from the order impugned, the concerned authority stated that the amount of damages should be paid by the aforesaid employer/petitioner-company in the respective employees' provident fund accounts maintained by the bank within a period 15 days, failing which a proceeding for recovery of such sums will be made under Section 8 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was also directed that in case of failure to deposit penal damages within the stipulated period. Section 7Q of the Act for further simple interest will be added....
Tag this Judgment!Edward Keventer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD347(Kol.)
1. These two appeals, filed by the assessee, are directed against two separate orders dated 29-12-2000 and 25-1-2001 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessments made Under Section 143(3) pertaining to A.Ys.1993-94 and 1995-96 respectively. The issues involved in these appeals are connected to each other as these two appeals were heard together, and as such a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.2. Gr. No. 1 is stated by the assessee in its concise ground of appeal is as under :- "That the Ld. CIT(A), Central-II, Calcutta, erred in confirming the disallowance of the loss of Rs. 1,68,12,637/- suffered by the appellant company during the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1993-94 on sale of 12,32,000 shares in Keventer Agro Ltd. and claimed by it under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the income-tax Act, 1961." 3. This issue is related to the disallowance of capital loss of Rs. 1,68,12,637/-. The facts related to this issue has emerged out of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. (Present ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Cal)339,[2003]260ITR55(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. In this reference the following question has been referred to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to grant investment allowance under Section 32A and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' Submission on behalf of the Department : 2. Mr. Mallick, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submits that the Assessing Officer (the ITO) had properly dealt with the question referred to in this reference. The appellate authority and the learned Tribunal have wrongly appreciated the proposition having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 32(1)(iia) and 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to him, in order to avail of the benefit of Sections 32(1)(iia) and 32A(1) of the 1961 Act, additional depreciation and investment allowance can be availed of only in respect of the plant, other than those excep...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Kar Sharma Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT555(HC)
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This appeal preferred by the referring claimant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th February, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore in L.A. Misc. Case No 1 of 2000 arising out of L.A. Case No. 15 of 1999-2000. The claimant appellant has preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the valuation of the acquired land assessed by the learned Judge and in not awarding proper valuation of trees and structures standing on the land along with other grounds.2. It appears that the claimant appellant made a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act - I, 1894 being dissatisfied with the award made by the L.A. Collector, Midnapore in connection with L.A. Case No. 15 of 1999-2000. It appears that the L.A. Collector acquired 0.10 acres of land of Mouza Garhmoyna in plot No. 395 under J.L. No. 207 within P.S. Moyna, District Midnapore for construction of Prajabarh to Bhagwnpur Road and it was acquired v...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Kanoria Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)85ITD95(Kol.)
This appeal has been filed by the revenue and there are eight grounds of appeal as follows: (i) "For that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in holding that excess of sale proceeds over purchase price or adjusted purchase price of shares was taxable capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961".(ii) "For that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in holding that sale of bonus shares resulted into taxable capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act".(iii) "For that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in confirming disallowance of service charges of Rs. 1,58,600".(iv) "For that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in confirming disallowance of travelling expenses of Rs. 55,044".(v) "For that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in confirming levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act".(vi) "For that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in not admitting additional grounds and confirming the assessment order a...
Tag this Judgment!Parasmani Investment Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)85ITD133(Kol.)
Ground Nos. 1 and 17 in this appeal filed by the assessee are of general nature and hence, they do not deserve any specific adjudication.Ground Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 relate to the question of taxability of the sale considerations in respect of shares on the investment portfolio.The assessee has claimed that in view of there being no cost of acquisition for the bonus shares and no cost of improvement in respect of the original shares (which had certainly been acquired by the assessee by incurring certain monetary costs), there would be no case for charging the profits/gains arising out of the transfer of both the types of shares to capital gains tax.This issue has been discussed in great detail in our order dated 29-3-2000 in the case of Shekhawati Rajputana Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (I.T. Appeal No. 2934 (Cal) of 1995 : assessment year-1992-1993). The facts of the present case are exactly similar to this in the said case.Arguments have also been put forward by the representatives of both th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »