Kolkata Court March 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balarampur Commercial Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Cal)578,[2003]262ITR439(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. In this case the following question has since been referred to for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,04,000 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed and enhanced by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to Rs. 2,69,685 on account of interests from the Hindu undivided family debtor on accrual basis ?' 2. The Assessing Officer had held that the income had accrued and, therefore, had directed the addition of Rs. 2,04,000. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and found that the addition would be enhanced to Rs. 2,69,685. The learned Tribunal, however, deleted the said addition. 3. The relevant assessment year was 1988-89 relating to the accounting year (previous year) 1986-87 ending with October, 1987. The assessee had advanced loan to one Tulsidas Rajivlochan (HUF) on February 25, 1983. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Kanoi Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC205,(2003)2CALLT604(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. Petitioner in the instant writ petition has questioned the complaints being Annexure P-3 and prayed for quashing the same.2. None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent complaint. On behalf of the State respondents, an affidavit-in-opposition has been affirmed on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution have been infringed by the impugned action of the complaint being lodged by the private respondent and the learned Magistrate directing the Police authorities to conduct investigation in respect thereof. Petitioner, it is stated is working as teacher in English at Junior Oxford Bilingual School, Dongguan, People's Republic of Chine. On account of the false complaint registered against the petitioner during the period when the petitioner was working as and is presently also working as non-resident Indian in Peoples Republic of China, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrimati Bhavita Jitendra Mehta Vs. Sudera Enterprises Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT266(HC),[2004]122CompCas361(Cal),[2004]51SCL290(Cal)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is to consider an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against orders dated January 30, 2003, February 17, 2003 and February 21, 2003 all passed by the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in R.C.A. No. 1 of 2002.2. The petitioner in this application is a tenant in respect of shop No, B-203, lower basement, at 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta 71, The petitioner was inducted in the disputed premises by Sudera Enterprises Private Limited.3. Sometime in April 1989 the petitioner initiated a proceeding in the office of the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The said proceeding was, however, transferred to the Additional Rent Controller and was, ultimately registered as A.R.C. No. 92 of 1989(FR).4. On or about April 6, 2000 Sudera Enterprises Private Limited, A.B.L. International Limite...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Filaments Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT26(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated April 19, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal, Kolkata ('CEGAT') by which the said tribunal has affirmed the order of the Commissioner imposing redemption fine and personal penalty upon the petitioners. The petitioners have further prayed for direction upon respondent No. 1 to refund a sum of rupees thirty lakh which has been paid by the petitioners by way of redemption fine on the imported goods and also for refund of rupees five lakh paid by the petitioner No. 1 as the personal penalty and a further sum of rupees one lakh paid by petitioner No. 2 as personal penalty on him.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the instant writ application may be summarised thus:The petitioners are importers of various items including lithophone. On the basis of the petitioners' order for import which was declared by the petitioners to be 21.5 MT of lithophone, the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Jamadar Sha and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT48(HC)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ petitioners, whose names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Siliguri for the posts or Primary Teacher, have prayed for direction upon the respondents to cancel the orders of appointment of private respondent Nos. 13 to 39 with a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners in the aided Government sponsored free primary school under the urban area of Siliguri Municipality on the allegation that according to the existing rule the private respondents whose names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange could not be considered for appointment.3. Following facts are not in dispute:The petitioners earlier filed another writ application being C.O. No. 714(W) of 1997 challenging the legality of the preparation of panel for the posts of Assistant Teacher in various aided primary schools in the District of Darjeeling prepared by the respondents authority. The said writ application came up for final h...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Gopal Chandra Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT318(HC),(2004)IILLJ539Cal
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 28th February, 1997 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and held that the termination of the writ petitioner is in utter violation of Article 21 of the Constitution because the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, admittedly, not complied with while terminating the service of the petitioner. Hence the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 19th August, 1994 issued by the General Manager, Mugma Area (annexure 'B' of the writ petition). The learned single Judge directed the respondents to pay the petitioner within six weeks from the date of the judgment, all arrear salaries and allowances from the date of termination of his service till the date of the judgment, which the petitioner would have been entitled to had his service not been terminated.2. For convenient disposal of this appeal, brief...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhunath Kundu and ors. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN776
Indira Banerjee, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged an order dated 27th June, 2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 allowing the application of the respondent No. 7 for renewal of a licence under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation of Public Exhibition) Rules, 1956 for the cinema 'Swapanpuri' at Bansberia.2. The facts pertaining to this writ petition are briefly as follows.3. The petitioners claim themselves to be the owners of the said cinema hall by inheritance from one Manindra Chandra Kundu since deceased.4. On or about lst November, 1985 the petitioners leased out the said cinema hall to one Jiban Krishna Biswas for a period of 10 years. The formal lease deed was, according to the petitioners, executed on 20th May, 1988.5. It appears that Jiban Krishna Biswas to whom the said cinema hall has been leased out by the petitioners died soon thereafter. After the death of the said Jiban Krishna Biswas, his heirs and successors became the lessee of the said cinema ...
Tag this Judgment!itc Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)86ITD135(Kol.)
This is assessee's appeal against the order, dt. 27th March, 1998, of CIT(A)-XV, Kolkata, for the asst. yr. 1994-95. The revised grounds of appeal have been tiled by the assessee.The ground taken by the assessee is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in rejecting the appellant's claim for being allowed deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of IT Act, 1961, while computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession for the relevant assessment year, for interest paid by the appellant during the relevant previous year amounting to Rs. 8,25,01,104 on loans taken to acquire fixed assets for its existing business operations, where the said sum of interest, being related to the period prior to the putting into use of the said fixed assets, had been capitalised in the books of account of the appellant prepared for the relevant previous year.1. This sum of Rs. 8,25,01,104 represe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Industrial Society Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Cal)67,[2003]262ITR1(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The assessee, admittedly, was carrying on business in respect of some items other than white cement. It obtained a licence for setting up manufacturing business of white cement. Instead of setting up a business, the assessee had transferred the licence to some other concern. However, the assessee had some interest by way of shares held in the said concern and some of the directors were common. On account of transfer of the said licence, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. In the return for the year 1986-87, this amount was shown but exemption was claimed by the assessee on the ground that this is not taxable either as income from business or as capital gains. It had treated the same as a capital receipt, which is not chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer treated the same as capital gains since it was not in dispute that the licence was treated as a capital asset. The assessee preferred an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that this amount cannot b...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Construction Vs. the Eastern Railways
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT448(HC)
ORDERA.K. Bisi, J.1. The petitioner M/s. K.M. Construction has filed the instant application under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) making following prayers:'(a) Leave be granted to the petitioner to revoke the authority and/ or power of the said learned Joint Arbitrators Shri N.K. Sinha and Sri A. Bandhapadhyay.(b) The said learned Joint Arbitrators Shri N.K. Sinha and Sri A. Bandhapadhyay be removed.(c) Independent and impartial person/persons be appointed by this Hon'ble Court as Arbitrator/Arbitrators to adjudicate disputes and differences between the parties under the same terms and scope of reference pending before the said learned Joint Arbitrators Sri N.K. Sinha and Sri A. Bandhapadhyay.(d) Directions be given to the Arbitrators appointed in terms of prayer (c) hereinabove to publish an award within four months from the date of entering into reference and/or within any time limit as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and prope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »