Kolkata Court February 2003 Judgments
Deputy Director of Income-tax (investigation) and ors. Vs. Mahesh Kuma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR338(Cal)
D. K. Seth, J. 1. A notice under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, is the subject matter of challenge in this proceedings. The writ petition, however, was allowed by a judgment dated October 8, 2002 (Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Deputy Director of income-tax : [2003]260ITR67(Cal) ), quashing the notice. Challenging the said order passed in Writ Petition No. 2506 of 2001, the present appeal has since been filed. 2. Mr. Pronab Pal, learned senior counsel for the Revenue/appellant, pointed out the materials on which the opinion as to the existence of reason to believe was formulated, as is appearing from the paper book (pages 422-447). He pointed out that it satisfies the pre-conditions provided in Section 132(1). According to him, the enquiry was conducted by an officer of the rank of the Deputy Director. He had made discreet enquiries, as is recorded in the notes prepared by him. He had given details of the reasons. These were considered by the Director and the Director-General who ...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen Represented by Colliery Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Central Govt. Indust ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN64
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 18.9.2001, passed by Sri B.P. Sharma, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata in connection with Reference No. 16/85 whereby and whereunder reference was answered against the petitioner by holding that the petitioners being contractor's workers were not entitled to the relief of listing their names in the direct roll of the company and thereby to have regularisation of their services as direct employees of the organisation.3. By order No. L-19012(66)/84-D.IV(B) dated 10.5.85, the Central Government in exercise of its power under Sections 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act; 1947, referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication :'Whether the Management of Dhomomain Colliery under Sitarampur Area of Bastern Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Sitarampur (Burdwan) was justified in not taking the...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Teachest and Fibre Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC348(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ petitioner has challenged an order dated July 22, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in Appeal Case No. A-22/ AW/2001-02 thereby dismissing the said appeal.2. There is no dispute that an order of assessment dated June 25, 1998 was passed against the petitioner but he did not prefer any appeal. Subsequently, the assessing officer, however, initiated a suo motu review proceeding and ultimately allowed a claim under section 8(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 '(the CST Act)' for Rs. 3,78,16,679.16 paise in place of original claim allowed for Rs. 3,75,77,937.16 paise.3. Being dissatisfied with the said order of review the petitioner preferred an appeal under the provisions of the CST Act read with section 79 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 '(the WBST Act)'.4. By the order impugned herein, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner not having preferred an...
Tag this Judgment!Maynak Poddar (Huf) Vs. Wealth Tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Cal)362,[2003]262ITR633(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. 1. In this case for the asst. yr. 1993-94, the assessee's commercial building let out to tenants was treated as an asset within the meaning of Section 2(ea) of the WT Act, 1957, as it stood then. 2. Mr. Khaitan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, points out that until the provision was amended there was no scope for including a commercial building within the definition of 'asset' and therefore, it was not taxable under the WT Act, 1957. In elaborating his contention, he had referred to the charging section viz., Section 3 of the Act, which propose to impose tax on 'net wealth' exceeding a particular valuation. 'Net wealth' as defined in Section 2(m) means the aggregate value of all the assets subject to the provisions contained therein. The word 'asset' used in Section 2(m) as defined in Section 2(ea) does not include commercial building. In order to emphasize that a commercial building was not an asset Mr. Khaitan had led us through the Finance (No. 2) Bil...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Bagla Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT470(HC),2004CriLJ171,(2003)IIILLJ510Cal
Sujit Barman Roy, J.1. By this common order both these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the same petitioner are being disposed as identical questions of facts and law have been raised.2. In these two petitions petitioner has prayed for quashing the FIRs in Birpara P.S. Case No. 4/2002 under Sections 406/409 I.P.C. and Birpara P.S.Case No. 55/2002 under Sections 406/409 I.P.C. and all investigation in connection therewith.3. It is alleged that Hanuman Tea Co. Ltd. is the owner of the Ramjhora Tea Estate situated at Birpara of Alipurduar in the State of West Bengal. Petitioner was a Director of the said Hanuman Tea Co. Ltd. However, petitioner claims to have resigned from the Directorship of the said company on or about July 18, 2002. He further claims that at no material point of time petitioner was owner or occupier of the said Tea Estate nor had he any control over the affairs of the same.4. Complainant being an Enforcement Officer appointed under...
Tag this Judgment!Sail Dsp Vr Employees Association 1998 Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Cal)367,[2003]262ITR638(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. In this case the petitioner-appellants were subjected to voluntary retirement pursuant to a voluntary retirement scheme (scheme) by the employer-respondent. The scheme appears at p. 21 of the paper book (Annexure 'B' to the writ petition). The respondent authority had been deducting tax at source under the provisions of Section 192 of the IT Act, 1961. This seems to have been clarified by the employer through Annexure, 'C' at p. 24 of the paper book. This has since been challenged by the employees' association, the petitioners/appellants, as not chargeable to tax in view of Clause (10C) of Section 10 of the IT Act. 2. According to Mr. Bagchi, learned counsel for the appellants, the amount received under the scheme is an amount referred to in Section 10(10C) and became due and payable at the time when the voluntary retirement under the scheme took place and chargeable to tax under Section 15, Clause (a), of the said Act, whether paid or not. If the payment is spread ove...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Kanoria and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT48a(HC),2003(2)CHN414,(2003)IIILLJ433Cal
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. Parties are present before me through their learned advocates. Heard them at length.2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of Mr. R.L. Kanoria and 4 others seeking to set aside the order dated October 7, 1997 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta in the proceeding being No. C/2363/97 pending before the said learned Court under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and/or quashing of the aforesaid proceeding.3. The short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under:4. The petitioners are the Directors of Carbon Composites (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said company'). The said company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing various types of sports goods and they had a factory at Falta Processing Zone, 'Sector-I'. It has been alleged that the Insurance Inspector of the complainant has lodged a complaint...
Tag this Judgment!Sail Dsp Vr Employees Association 1998 Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN704(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. In this case the petitioner appellants were subjected to voluntary retirement pursuant to a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') by the employer respondent. The Scheme appears at page 21 of the paper book (Annexure 'B' to the writ petition). The respondent authority had been deducting tax at source under the provisions of section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This seems to have been clarified by the employer through Annexure 'C' at page 24 of the paper book. This has since been challenged by the Employees' Association, the petitioners/appellants, as not chargeable to tax in view of clause (10C) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act.2. According to Mr. Bagchi, learned counsel for the appellants, the amount received under the Scheme is an amount referred to in section 10(10C) and became due and payable at the time when the voluntary retirement under the Scheme took place and chargeable to tax under section 15 clause (a) of the said Act, whe...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Chandra Guha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Cal296
ORDERAmitava Lala, J. 1. While disposing of the writ petition being W.P. 361(W)/99 along with CAN No. 2931/1999 on 14-12-99, I was pleased to pass the following orders : 'The writ petition was made challenging the rate of royalty from the Asansol Sub-Division Brick field Owners' Association from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 20/- and thereafter an application was made in this respect challenging the same being CAN No. 2931/99.2. The matter was heard in the earlier occasion and now it is placed as 'for orders'. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that in view of a single Bench judgment and order passed in C.O. 6895(W)/90 in respect of Birbhurn Brick Field Owners' Association that uniform fixation of royalty at a particular rate and without making any classification as to places and regions of different parts of West Bengal having regard to the market price of the earth of those places, is absolutely unreliable and absurd. The quality of finished bricks depends upon...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Chakraborty and ors. Vs. Bagala Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal98,2003(2)CHN337
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside the grant of Letters of Administration with copy Will annexed made in favour of one Smt. Bagala Chakraborty on 24.5.1995.2. The deceased, her husband, Sudhir Kumar Chakraborty had made a Registered Will under which his widow was to get the entirety of his property. After this clause of absolute grant, there are other clauses in derogation, seeking to give the other parties, the property left by the deceased, in case those are left disposed of by Bagala during her lifetime.3. Mr. Banerjee's clients, the appellants, pressed their application for setting aside of the ex parte grant particularly on the ground that their lawyer, Mahato could not attend on 24.5.1995 because of his daughter's marriage.4. The learned Judge in the court below correctly analysing the evidence before him, has opined that the marriage of the daughter took place on 21.6.1996 which was a month later and also that Mahato, who came to the box di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »