Kolkata Court May 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vijay Mallya Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Cal)201
D.K. Seth, J. 1. In W.P. No. 213 of 1996, the appellant as petitioner had challenged the jurisdiction of the Asstt. CIT, Investigation Circle 4(1), Calcutta, to issue the notice dt. 9th Jan., 1996, for rectification of the assessment relating to the asst. yr. 1991-92 under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961. The learned Single Judge, by an order dt. 10th Sept., 2002, was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition. The present appeal has since been filed against the said decision. The letter accompanying the said notice (p. 70 of the paper book) discloses that the AO in the relevant assessment (asst. yr. 1991-92) had held the appellant as 'nonresident', which is a mistake of fact apparent from the records, requiring rectification. From the assessment proceedings for the asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 and the facts furnished by the assessee, it was found that the assessee was a resident for the year 1989-90. Though he could be a 'non-resident' for the year 1990-91, but in the asst. yr. 1991-...
Goenka Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Cal)104,[2003]263ITR145(Cal)
Maharaj Sinha, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, two questions have come up for answer by us at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee, however, had framed four questions in its reference application under Section 256(1) of the Act. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the reference application on the ground that no question of law, in fact, arose and the findings of the learned Tribunal were based on findings of facts only.2. On the application of the assessee under Section 256(2), this court by an order dated November 11, 1997, directed reference observing that the first and the second questions, in fact, covered the case of the assessee.3. The said two questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that payments in sums exceeding Rs. 2,500 amounting to Rs. 4,83,000 made to Hanuman Sugar and Industries Ltd., made in respect of ...
Kusum Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC790,2003(157)ELT258(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners raised questions whether in view of Notification No. 16/96, dated 23rd July, 1996 by which payment of excise duties on vegetable product having been abolished, the credit already accumulated on the strength of the Notification No. 45/89, dated 11th October, 1989 stood lapsed or not, if not, then whether such credit can be refunded or adjusted against excise duty payable in respect of other product of the petitioners. Short fact of the case is stated hereunder :2. The petitioner No. 1 is manufacturer of banaspati product. For manufacturing of the said product various kinds of oil can be used as input, and the same are classified as major oils and minor oils. Soyabeans oil, cotton seed oil, which had hitherto been used by the petitioners as input, are classified as major oils while mahua oil, stermelon seed oil solution extracted from safola and rice bran oil are classified as minor oils. Both the major oils and minor oils...
Sk. Mohammad Bhai Shakih Samsud and ors. Vs. Associated Supply Corpora ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Cal316
Gorachand De, J. 1. This hearing arose out of an application filed by the respondents praying for clarification/rectification/modification of the judgment and order dated 27-7-98 and 9-4-99 passed in the original Appeal.2. Initially the appeal (FMA 1428/99) by the plaintiffs was directed against the order No. 18 dated 14-7-1998 passed by Shri A. K. Dasgupta, Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 962/1998. By the said order the ld. Chief Judge while disposing of two separate applications-one filed by the plaintiffs and the other by the defendants, praying for injunction, restrained both the parties and their respective agents and servants from blocking the passage from the main entrance gate of the suit premises, being premises No. 10, Pollock Street, Calcutta-700 001, running from West to East upto the staircase of the said building shown and demarcated in the sketch maps, filed by the respective parties, by parking any vehicle during office hours from 8 A.M. to 8...
Gajanand Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Central Provident Fund Comm ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT81(HC),(2004)ILLJ540Cal
A. Chakrabarti, J.1. Megna Mills Co. Ltd. had two jute mills known as Megna North Mill and Megna South Mill at Jagatddal, West Bengal which were lying closed for a long time. By an agreement between said Megna Mills Co. Ltd. and the petitioner No. 1, approved by this Court, the said Megna Mills Co. Ltd. transferred, sold and conveyed its South Mill in favour of the petitioner No. 1 for a consideration and the petitioner agreed to make payment of all liabilities of Megna Mills Co. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 650 lakhs. The petitioners started running the said mill under a scheme approved by this Court which came into effect from 1st March, 1987.2. An exemption had been granted under Section 17(1) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to the said company on 17th October, 1957.3. In the year 1999 the terms and conditions of exemption originally granted to the said establishment under Section 17(1) of the said Act were sought to be revised and accordingly a notic...
The Commissioner of Customs and anr. Vs. A.P.L. (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal121,(2003)3CALLT354(HC),2004(165)ELT272(Cal)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal and another Letters Patent appeal, being A.P.O.T. No. 728 of 1999 [The Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta Authorities and Anr. v. A.P.L. (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.], have been heard together; both were filed against the Judgment and order dated 4th May, 1999 passed in writ petition No. 1690(W) of 1998.2. By our judgment pronounced today in the other appeal, we have set aside the judgment and order of the learned single Judge. But we did not pass any order regarding the application of the sale proceeds of the cargoes, as in terms of order dated 26th July, 1999, passed in this appeal, the question of entitlement to the same--between the Customs and the Calcutta Port Trust-- is dependent upon the result of this appeal.3. Since facts and legal positions regarding the issues have been already discussed at length in the other judgment, we are not repeating the same. In this Judgment we are giving only a hint of the dispute involved.4. Two ...
Dugar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(154)ELT576(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two matters were heard together as points involved herein are similar. I, however, propose to take G.A. No. 634 of 2003 with W.P. No. 903 of 2001 first.G.A. No. 634 of 2003 with W.P. No. 903 of 20012. The main writ application is taken up along with the aforesaid interlocutory application. In the main writ application, the grievance of the writ petitioners was that the respondents authority was not paying the amount of drawback with interest on the basis of order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, dated June 21, 2000 and accordingly prayed for direction upon the respondent to release the amount in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in the connected appeal along with interest payable to the petitioner under Section 75A of the Customs Act.3. During the pendency of the instant writ application the respondent paid a total amount of Rs. 1,47,56/910/- inclusive of principal amount of drawback of Rs. 79,82,500/-....
Anil Kumar Mahensaria Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN674,2003(155)ELT18(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application the writ petitioner, an exporter, has challenged the authority of the respondent No. 3 to seize bank account opened by the petitioner for the purpose of realisation of drawback amountreleased by the customs authority.2. According to the petitioner, he maintains a Current Account being current account number C.A - 000000066224 with respondent No. 4, the United Bank of India, Calcutta Branch (CD Customs Department) in which the customs authority releases the drawback amount payable to the petitioner. There is no dispute that such an account is opened by an exporter for the purpose of receiving drawback benefits and such account is called Custom Account. In such an account except monetary benefits received under drawback scheme, no other amount can be kept.3. In this writ application, the writ petitioner has alleged that in respect of 9 different transactions mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ application, goods exported by the petitio...
Patton Estates Pvt. Ltd. and 26 ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT434(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. Several writ petitions are filed on the self-same issue. Hence, this Court was pleased to direct all such matters to be heard analogously and dispose of by delivering a judgment which will govern the field.2. The relevant point for consideration is when the registering authority under the Stamp Act found an instrument of conveyance is undervalued and directed the party concerned to pay enhanced value, can such authority also direct such party to pay enhanced duty under Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 proportionately with such enhancement?3. Section 82 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 says that the duty imposed by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on instruments of sale, gift and usufructuary mortgage, respectively, of immovable property shall, in the case of instruments affecting immovable property situated in the Calcutta Municipality and executed on or after the commencement of this Act be increased by 2% on the value of the property so situated, of (in the case of an usu...
Anis Fatma Begum Vs. Board of Wakf
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal91,(2003)2CALLT39(HC)
A. Kabir, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge on 30th August, 2000, in originating summons jurisdiction in Suit No. 488 of 1999, which had been filed for answers to be given to the following questions, namely. (a) Whether the demarcation of the wakf property being premises No. 33, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-700 071, made as above in dividing the said property in two distinctive parts, one for wakf-al-al-aulad and the remaining portion for pious and religious purposes, is correct and has been made in consonance with the provisions of the Wakf Deed? (b) Whether the Wakf Act, 1995, is applicable for the portion of the said property divided and earmarked for wakf-al-al-aulad? 2. By his said order the learned single Judge answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative. 3. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Sahidullah Munshi submitted that the learned single Judge had misunderstood the scope and purport o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›