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.
C.E.S.C. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dy. Cit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: [2004]270ITR383(Cal)
D. K. Seth J.The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 714 of 1996 (see : [2003]262ITR243(Cal) ), challenging the notices issued under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking to rectify summary assessment made under section 143(1)(a) of the Act for the assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. In the writ petition, the assessment for the year 1995-96 under section 143(1)(a) of the Act was also challenged. The petitioner had claimed allowable deduction in respect of the contingency reserve fund in the respective returns. Up to the assessment year 1994-95, the returns were accepted, allowing deduction in respect of the appropriation to contingency reserve fund and intimation under section 143(1)(a) was issued. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued. Regular assessment under section 143(3) was completed disallowing the appropriation to contingency reserve for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1992-93. Whereas regular as...
Anjali Mullick Vs. Mrityunjoy Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT382(HC),2004(2)CHN450
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This application (G.A. No. 1881 of 2002) dated May 3rd, 2002 has been taken out by one Satyendra Nath Boral (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant'). It has been filed in the partition and administration suit (No. 706 of 1979) pending in this Court. The applicant prays for his addition in the suit as a party defendant. He makes an alternative prayer for leave to intervene in the pending suit.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application are these. One Anjali Mullick as plaintiff filed the partition and administration suit in this Court in the year 1979. Seven persons were impleaded as defendants in it. In paragraph 19 (nineteen) of the plaint the plaintiff stated about the share of defendant 4 (Sm. Biva Boral) in the suit properties. On February, 24th, 1980 defendant 4 filed her written statement. On August 31st, 1991 defendant 4 executed and registered her Will. The applicant was appointed the sole executor. On December 5th, 1998 ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shib Charan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN501
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the award and decree dated 15th of April, 1995 passed by the Arbitrator, North 24-Parganas and South 24-Parganas in Arbitration Case No. 2 of 1989(V). F. M. A. No. 69 of 1996 has been preferred by the Union of India whereas F. M. A. No. 173 of 2003 was preferred by the referring claimant Shib Charan Sarkar. The appeal preferred by referring claimant was earlier in point of time. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are taken up together.Submission by the respective Counsel:2. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, the appellant in F. M. A. No. 69 of 1996, assailed the award and the decree on the ground that the valuation has not been assessed in accordance with law. The compensation awarded is on the higher side. It had relied on some documents, which are not reliable and the Arbitrator had proceeded to assess the compensation capriciously and arbitrarily. The Arbitrator has not taken...
Auto Trade and Finance Corporation Vs. Raj Kishore Sanganaria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT22(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This application (G.A. No. 4063 of 2003) has been taken out by the judgment-debtors in the execution application (G.A. No. 1254 of 2001); they were the defendants in Civil Suit No. 614 of 1999 filed in this Court by the decree-holder as plaintiff. In the Master's summons dated November 29th, 2003 connected with this application, the judgment-debtors have made the following prayers:--'(a) Application being G.A. No. 1254 of 2001 in C.S. No. 614 of 1999 (Auto Trade & Finance Corporation v. Raj Kishore Sanganaria and Anr.) be dismissed.(b) Orders dated April 10, 2001 passed in G.A. No. 1254 of 2001, order dated July 24, 2003 and November 14, 2003 be recalled and the Receiver appointed over two flats being Flat D and Flat F situate in Block-B-2 at second floor Premises No. 106, Kiran Chandra Singha Road, Howrah-711 102, be forthwith discharged.(c) Stay of all proceedings in G.A. No. 1254 of 2001 and applications connected therewith in C.S. No. 614 of 1999 (Auto Tr...
Magma Leasing Limited Vs. Jindal Steels Products and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC477
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The plaintiff is Civil Suit No. 35 of 1998 has taken out this application dated September 19th, 2003; it has been taken out for the following reliefs:'(a) The offer made by Bharat Steel Syndicate to purchase the said equipments be directed to be accepted by the learned Receiver;(b) The sale of the equipments to Bharat Steel Syndicate be confirmed by this Hon'ble Court;(c) The Receiver be directed to pay the purchase price to Magma Leasing Limited and Magma Leasing Limited be directed to appropriate the same in pro tanto satisfaction of its dues;(d) Upon delivery of possession of the said equipments to the purchase (sic) the Receiver be discharged;(e) Cost of this application be paid by the respondents;(f) Such further or other order or orders as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.'The facts as appear from the application and the affidavits filed in connection therewith are these. In January 1998 the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 35 of 1998 in this...
Sarita Devi Kajaria Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)276ITR34(Kol.)
1. On a difference of opinion between the Members Constituting this division, the following question was referred to the Hon'ble President of ITAT as Third Member for his opinion Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Judicial Member is justified to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer or the ld. Accountant Member is justified to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restoring the matter again to the file of the Assessing Officer." 2. The Hon'ble President of ITAT as Third Member to set aside of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.3. In accordance with the majority view, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.1. On account of difference between the two Hon'ble Members of A-Bench, Kolkata of the Tribunal, this matter has come before me Under Section 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961....
D.L. Miller and Company Limited and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT267(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been made by the companies challenging the withdrawal, recall and/or rescind and cancellation of the declarations made and orders passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of the premises No. 27, Raja Santosh Road, Calcutta-700 027. The petitioners have come to know about the proceedings at the time of taking possession of the property from such authority. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed taken the point that without service of notice and hearing to the petitioners, no order can be passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority.2. Factually the petitioners-companies are the holders of the land as lessees for a period of 20 years and till this date they are in possession. The suit was instituted in the year 1984 in between the landlord and the petitioners which was taken off the file from the High Court at Calcutta. However, litigations were proceeded with even thereafter and pending in the appropriate Court having...
Samarendra Kumar Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN597
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the validity and/or legality of the notice dated 19th January, 1984 issued by the Chairman, North Dum Dum Municipality under Section 321(1)(b) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and also challenged the subsequent notice dated 13th May, 1984 issued by the Commissioner of Ward No. 13 of the said North Dum Dum Municipality whereby the said Commissioner invited the petitioner in a meeting in order to settle the dispute mutually.2. The petitioner is the owner of the plot in question measuring about 1.5 cottahs. Initially, a building plan was sanctioned by the competent authority of the North Dum Dum Municipality on 6th August, 1981 for construction of a three-storied building on the said plot of land of the petitioner. In terms of Section 325(1) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, a building plan may be renewed for a further period of two years. Accordingly, the said building plan of the petitioner, renewed on 6th August, ...
Birla-dlw Ltd. Vs. Joint Director General of Foreign Trade
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(95)ECC451,2004(168)ELT293(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. The Court : This writ petition was made challenging the notice of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce dated 19th November, 2001 regarding cancellation of revalidation of Annual Advance Licence given by the Customs Authorities as well as reply to the prayer for consideration dated 20th December, 2001. The writ petition was filed on 29th January, 2002. Parties have exchanged their affidavits.2. At the time of final hearing Mr. J.P, Khaitan learned Advocate with able assistance of his junior Mr. S. Dasgupta, contended before this Court that Annual Advance Licence was renewed by the authority rightly for the period and the export and import within such period has already been effected pursuant to such extension of the period. Therefore, there cannot be any objection in respect of utilising such Annual Advance Licence and the same cannot be cancelled. If any step in connection with extension or non Annual Advance Licence ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›