Kolkata Court January 2004 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.
Assam Brook Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Cal)347
Sadhan Kumar Gupta , J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein two questions were referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return in respect of the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee is a limited company and the method of accounting is the mercantile system. The assessment, by the authority concerned, was made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee in respect of certain items amongst which the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance of Rs. 5,93,126 under Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are relevant so far as the present hearing is concerned. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Assessing Officer in respect of those two items, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereafter t...
Sm. Kamala Rani Mitra and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT445(HC)
Amitava Lala, J.1. From the judgment and order passed by the Court of first instance as well as the Court of Appeal, if find that both the Courts have rigidly followed filing of the 'B' Form return prescribed under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 when it seems that the same is nothing but material irregularity. As there was no procedure for formulation of points of hearing the Second Appeal and as there is no (embargo upon the Court to formulate it even at the time of hearing, I find the Ground Nos. 7 and 8 of the Memorandum of Appeal seem to be appropriate points for hearing the Second Appeal, and finally pass the order. The Ground Nos. 7 and 8 are set out herein:'7. For the even assuming but not admitting that no proper return was filed by the vendor of the plaintiffs, all the lands belonging to him cannot be directed to vest in the State of West Bengal but the State must allow the party to retain the lands which are permissible to be retained.8. For that in any event n...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Cal)19,[2004]267ITR248(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated August 28, 2003, passed by the learned single judge disposing of W. P. No. 941 of 2003 (see : [2004]267ITR241(Cal) . The writ petitioner/appellant-Shaw Wallace and Company Limited (SWCL) had assailed the notices issued under Section 226(3)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), against the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited (APBCL) as debtor of SWCL, the garnishee against whom a notice under Section 226(3) of the Act was issued, seeking to recover the tax due and payable by Visisth Chay Vyapar Limited (VCVL) in respect of the amount due and payable by SWCL, the garnishee to VCVL, the decree-holder, pursuant to a decree obtained by the latter against the former.2. The case has a chequered history. A brief reference to the facts would be of great assistance to understand the situation and follow the erudite arguments advanced respectively by Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.K. Kapoor...
Sasanka Sekhar Pal Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN97
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 255/03 which arose out of Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 87 dated 13.6.2003 and the chargesheet No. 64 dated 30.6.2003 under sections 465/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Kalyani, Nadia.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the Manager of Chakdaha Branch of Nadia District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. One Ratan Das deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each in the said bank on 11.1.03, 1.3.03, 26.3.03 and 5.5.03 but, said Ratan Das surreptitiously inserted digit '1' on left side of credit amounts of said Rs. 10,000/- each and subsequently withdraw Rs. 4,40,000/- from the bank. Immediately after the petitioner became aware of the offences committed by Ratan D...
Assam Brook Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: [2004]267ITR121(Cal)
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein two questions were referred to this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return in respect of the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee is a limited company and the method of accounting is the mercantile system. The assessment, by the authority concerned, was made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee in respect of certain items amongst which the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 32AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance of Rs. 5,93,126 under section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are relevant so far as the present hearing is concerned. Being aggrieved by the decision of the assessing officer in respect of those two items, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter the matter finally ...
T. Gurumurthy Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN91
N.C. Sil, J.1. The present revisional application arose out of the modified order dated May 15, 2003, passed by Shri N. N. Ghosh, learned District and Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2001. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.7.2001 passed by Shri S. K. Verma, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Car Nicobar, in connection with G. R. Case No. 103 of 2000 corresponding to T. R, No. 133 of 2001.2. The learned Trial Court appears to have convicted the revisionist/accused for the offences under Sections 304A, 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304A IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- i. d. to simple imprisonment for two months and no separate punishment was awarded for the offence under Section 338 IPC.3. The revisionist preferred an appeal...
Animesh Chandra Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN217
P. N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 575 of 1996 arising out of Chinsurah P.S. Case No. 37 dated 28.4.86 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Hooghly being Special Court Case No. 2 of 1991.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was posted as Store Keeper-cum-Clerk-cum-Accountant of Imambara Sadar Hospital. On 23.4.86 he informed the Programma Director-cum-Superintendent, District Hospital, Hooghly stating that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was defalcated by someone forging his signature. The petitioner was arrested by police in connection with Chinsurah P.S. Case No. 37 dated 28.4.86 under Section 409 of I.P.C. which was started on the basis of complaint lodged by Programme Director-cum-Superintendent, District Hospi...
Sri Debi Prosad Basu Vs. Sri Amit Chakrabortry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT456(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. In this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a challenge has been thrown in respect of the order dated 27th September 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas wherein an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with the Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on contest without cost.2. According to me, such order is totally de hors the well settled principle of law as well as the judgment passed by our High Court and the Supreme Court. The Order 7 Rule 11 (d) speaks that where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred any law, the same shall be rejected. In Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, effective from 1st February, 1977 speaks that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree passed was not lawful. Therefore, the second suit is barred by law. In the judgment reported in : AIR1993SC113...
Gangadhar Bera Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Cal)467,[2004]267ITR422(Cal)
Kalayan Jyoti Sengupta J.1. This writ petition is directed against a notice dated October 21, 2002, admittedly issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). I think the text of the notice must be incorporated hereunder :'There are certain points in connection with the return of income submitted by you on October 29, 2001, for the assessment year 2001-2002 on which I would like some further information.You are hereby required to attend my office on November 11, 2002, at 12.30 p.m. either in person or by a representative duly authorised in writing in this behalf or produce or cause thereto be produced at the said time any documents, accounts and any other evidence on which you may rely in support of the return filed by you.'2. At the top of the aforesaid impugned notice, 'section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961' has been mentioned. This notice was issued on October 21, 2002. On receipt of this notice, the assessee/petitioner objecte...
Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(167)ELT396(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. The Court : This writ petition has been made by the petitioner, a Government of India Enterprise, challenging an order of appeal passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), dated 31st July, 1995 rejecting the prayer for refund of excess amount and confirming the earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraising Refund Section).2. The petitioner company required to import certain steel plates from abroad for carrying out its manufacturing business. Those steel plates are to be assessed for Customs Duty at the rates prescribed under the Customs Tariff Act. The ascertainment of Customs Tariff is dependable upon the quantity, nature, character and material composition. By a purchase order dated 7th February, 1990 MMTC imported 30 pcs. of Hot Rolled Plates from its Belgium Exporter and shipped it to a vessel under Bill of Lading No. Z-02, dated 6th April, 1990. The petitioner company purchased said plates from MMTC on High Seas basis. The Customs Aut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »