Kolkata Court March 2003 Judgments
Management of Calcutta Telephones and anr. Vs. Jayanta Kumar Banerjee ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ1092Cal
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed against the interim order passed by a learned single Judge dated December 10, 1996 and March 14, 1997.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal are that the Management of Calcutta Telephones filed writ petition challenging the award dated October 27, 1995 passed by K.C. Jagadeb Roy, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta in Reference Case No. 39 of 1991 published on December 7, 1995, The respondent workman was engaged as a casual worker by the Telecommunication Department and he was paid the daily wages and worked for 76 days in the year 1987 and again he was engaged in 1988. It is alleged that excepting the aforesaid 76 days in the year 1987 the respondent could not be engaged nor was engaged in the year 1988, as there was no other casual job available for him. Then an industrial dispute was raised with regard to the termination of the services of the workman. The case of the workman was thath...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. General Industrial Society Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN628(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.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 that 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 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 capital asset. The assessee preferred an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that this amount cannot...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Enterprises and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ695Cal
Amitava Lala, J. 1. It appears to this Court that by making this writ petition the order passed by the judge, Third Industrial Tribunal on September 20, 2002, has been challenged. Such order was passed under Section 15(2)(b) of the West Bengal (Amendment) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The grievance of the management by making this writ petition is that the sufficiency of the income after termination or in a case where the workman was disallowed to work is upon the workman and not upon the management. Therefore, when in an earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 3606 (W) of 2002, such question was decided by this Court and the order of the Tribunal passed by the predecessor-in-interest in the office of the Tribunal was quashed and the Tribunal was directed to proceed afresh granting the parties necessary opportunities to produce evidence, the concerned judge sitting in the Third Industrial Tribunal should have proceeded within the scope and ambit of the order passed by the High Court. For...
Tag this Judgment!Sitala Prasad Jaiswal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT302(HC)
D.P. Kundu, J.1. This writ proceeding relates to Holding Nos. 25, 26 and 27, Shyam Nagar Road, being Premises Nos. 39, 39A and 39B, Shyam Nagar Road within the jurisdiction of South Dum Dum Municipality. The writ petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid premises.2. The writ petitioners stated that there was a factory known as Hindusthan Iron & Steel commonly known as Rod-Kal in the adjacent area of the aforesaid premises. The writ petitioners claim that at the aforesaid premises, there never was a factory in existence or operational. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid factory on the adjacent land of the aforesaid premises had also been shut down in or around the year 1960. The petitioners claim that at all material time the aforesaid premises has been used for residential purpose and even the factory shed was used for residential purpose.3. On 7th June, 1991 the petitioners submitted a building plan to the South Dum Dum Municipality. By a letter dated 28th November...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal Banthia and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT164(HC),II(2003)DMC546
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench of City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Session Trial No. 1 of May, 1985 (Sessions Case No. 15 of 1984) whereby the learned Judge sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC. During pendency of the appeal the appellant No. 1 Surajmal Banthia has expired and the appeal against him has abated. Therefore, only appellant No. 2 Smt. Doli Devi Banthia is before us in this appeal and we are to consider whether the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is sustained in law and fact.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that Kusum Bothra (Banthia), the daughter of Dhanraj Bothra (PW 1) and Mr. Mohini Bothra (PW 2) was given in marriage with Indrajit Banthia, son of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)605,[2003]263ITR623(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. 1. Two questions have since been referred to in this case, namely : '1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,93,000 as introduction of share capital 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the AO to charge tax @ 55 per cent instead of 65 per cent although the assessee is not entitled for the same as per term and condition as per company law ?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, it relates to addition of Rs. 3,93,000 on account of the subscription of share capital being held as ingenuine transaction under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The law with regard thereto has since been crystallized. Similar question was involved in IT Ref. No. 20 of 1996, Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT and IT Ref. No. 78 of 1995, CIT v. Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. disposed of by this Court on 11th & 12th March, 2003. The principal ingredient that has to be satisfied is to establish the identity of the subsc...
Tag this Judgment!Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN346,(2004)IIILLJ430Cal
Pratap Kr. Ray, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner, Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd., a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has challenged the Notice dated 15th January, 1983 issued on behalf of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal being Annexure 'C' of the writ application, the Notice dated 15th January, 1983 issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal. The Andaman & Nicobar Island Annexure 'D' as well as the final order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal dated 19th July, 1984 being Annexure 'G' of this writ application. The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind and/or withdrawn the impugned notices being Annexure 'C' and 'D' and impugned order being Annexure 'G' to this application.(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the entire record...
Tag this Judgment!Daulatram Rawatmull Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investm ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN265,[2006]66SCL364(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. A sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs was lent and advanced by the petitioner to the company at an agreed interest. The said deposit was rolled over from time to time. Initially the company could not make payment of the interest as well as the principal amount. Ultimately, a sum of Rs. 25.00 lakhs was paid on account of principal leaving a balance sum of Rs. 25.00 lakhs together with interest. The petitioner through its advocate raised a statutory notice of demand dated 3rd April, 1999 inter alia demanding Rs. 25.00 lakhs on account of balance of the principal amount and Rs. 11,69,353.27 on account of balance of the interest payable during the period 20th December, 1994 to 31st March, 1999. The company through its Advocate denied its liability as according to them the liability was a premature one and asked for withdrawal of statutory notice. In the affidavit-in-opposition such consistent stand had been taken by the company. To elaborate such stand reliance was placed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN153(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.Two questions have since been referred to in this case, namely :'1. Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,93,000 as introduction of share capital?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the assessing officer to charge tax at the rate of 55% instead of 65 per cent although the A is not entitled for the same as per term and condition as per Companys law?'2. So far as the first question is concerned, it relates to addition of Rs. 3,93,000 on account of the subscription to share capital being held as ingenuine transaction under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The law with regard thereto has since been crystallized. Similar question was involved in Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT (IT Reference No. 20 of 1996, dated 11/12-3-2003) and CIT v. Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. (IT Reference No. 78 of 1995, dated 11/12-3-2003). The principal ingredient that has to be satisfied is to establish the identity of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kundan Investment Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)608,[2003]263ITR626(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. 1. In this reference, three questions have since been referred to viz. : '1. Whether the findings of the Tribunal leading to the conclusion that the entire share capital of the assessee-company was genuine are based on relevant material or otherwise perverse 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the entire addition made on account of income from undisclosed sources 3. Whether the findings of the Tribunal leading to the conclusion that the share loss has been established by the assessee-company to be genuine is based on relevant evidence or otherwise perverse ?' 2. From the above questions, it appears that there are two parts in this case. One part relates to the subscription to share capital and the other part relates to loss in share transaction. So far the capital part is concerned, the same can be divided into two parts. One in respect of promoters' quota and the other in respect of public issue. Lo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »