Kolkata Court October 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.
Jct Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Cal)509,[2005]276ITR115(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. These two appeals by the same assessee for the two respective asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89 involved identical question of law on identical facts. Therefore, these two appeals have been taken up together for disposal.The question :2. In the present case, the assessee who was already continuing with its business, had acquired certain machineries and plants for expansion of the units The payment for such plants and machineries was agreed to be in terms of Deferred Payment Scheme, which included interest. The question now arises is as to whether the interest paid on the borrowed capital, under a Deferred Payment Scheme for acquisition of plants and machineries until the plants and machineries are first put to use, could be deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) or Section 37 of the IT Act, 1961 in computing the assessee's income, as revenue expenditure, though capitalized in the account of the assessee, but on which the assessee did not claim depreciation or development reba...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jayshree Insulators
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(185)ELT9(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The questions raised : In this application under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 before it was amended in 1999, two points have been raised namely :(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the credit of Modvat of Refractory bricks and Silicon Carbide Tiles under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 relying on the affidavit filed by the assessee describing the manufacturing process of Electrical insulator and the usage of the impugned items therein. The Tribunal has not considered the very fact that even by the assessee's own account the impugned items were used to cover the Kiln Trolleys which are inserted into the Kiln for the purpose of firing of the insulator in the Kiln. They are, therefore, very much parts of the Trolleys, which are in turn, parts of the Kiln itself. In other words, the impugned items are not inputs as defined under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, but only part of the Kiln.(ii) Whether the Tribunal ha...
Jct Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN435(Cal)
D.K. Seth, JThese two appeals by the same assessee for the two respective asst. yrs, 1987-88 and 1988-89 involved identical question of law on identical facts. Therefore, these two appeals have been taken up together for disposal.The question :2. In the present case, the assessee who was already continuing with its business, had acquired certain machineries and plants for expansion of the units. The payment for such plants and machineries was agreed to be in terms of Deferred Payment Scheme, which included interest. The question now arises is as to whether the interest paid on the borrowed capital, under a Deferred Payment Scheme for acquisition of plants and machineries until the plants and machineries are first put to use, could be deductible under section 36(1)(iii) or section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in computing the assessee's income, as revenue expenditure, though capitalized in the account of the assessee, but on which the assessee did not claim depreciation or development...
Parul Sengupta and anr. Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN281
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. A very important question of law having far reaching consequences on the working of Housing Co-operatives of the State has been raised through the present appeal.2. For better appreciation of the points raised in the appeal, it would be proper to give the background behind filing of the present appeal, which is as follows:One Biswa Ranjan Sengupta, who died on 22nd July, 2003, hereinafter referred to as 'the said deceased' was a member of the respondent Co-operative Housing Society, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Society', and was allotted a flat in the apartment constructed by the said Society. The writ petitioner is the married daughter of the said deceased. During the lifetime of the said deceased, he nominated the petitioner in respect of his share and interest in the said Society and, accordingly, such nomination was recorded in the Register maintained by the said Society for that purpose. By a letter dated 13th November, 2003 the said Society informed ...
India Glycols Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Cal)191,[2005]274ITR137(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In spite of the direction no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in this matter. Pursuant to the earlier order supplementary affidavit has been filed.2. This petition is directed against an order dated April 25,1994, passed by respondent No. 3, namely, the Commissioner, Moradabad, and the Order dated April 30, 1996, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad. The petitioners have also challenged various notices dated October 30, 1996 and March 12,1997, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range, Moradabad. The short facts of the case are narrated hereunder :3. The first petitioner is having its principal place of business at Calcutta, as such since day one it has been filing returns in Calcutta and is being assessed by respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 has a factory and registered office at Moradabad. On or about September 13, 1993, respondent No. 4 issued notices to petitioner No. 1 for filing returns in ...
India Glycols Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN549(Cal)
Counsels: Som with Chakaraborty, for the Revenue. In The Calcutta High Court Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta J.Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta JIn spite of the direction no affidavit-inopposition has been filed in this matter. Pursuant to the earlier order supplementary affidavit has been filed.This petition is directed against an order dated 25-5-1994, passed by respondent No. 3, namely, the Commissioner, Moradabad, and the order dated 30-4-1996, passed by the Deputy CIT, Moradabad. The petitioners have also challenged various notices dated 30-10-1996 and 12-3-1997, issued by the Deputy CIT (Assessment), Special Range, Moradabad. The short facts of the case are narrated hereunder :The first petitioner is having its principal place of business at Calcutta, as such since day one it has been filing returns in Calcutta and is being assesse by respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 has a factory and registered office at Moradabad. On or about 13-9-1993, respondent No. 4 issued notices to petitioner No. 1 for fil...
G. Fuel Pte Ltd. Vs. Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.T. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN62
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff supplied gas oil to M.V. Yang Pu at the instance of M/s. Hainan Nayan Shipping Industrial,Pte. Ltd.. The said sale was confirmed by a fax communication dated 27th July, 1999. The supply was made on 14th August, 1999. As the money was not forthcoming, despite reminders, plaintiff filed the suit in this Court on 12th November, 1999 inter alia for arrest of a vessel M.T. 'New Nanyang No. 1' on the ground that the supply was made at the instance of M/s. Hainan Nayan Shipping Industrial Pte. Ltd. who was the owner of the vessel M.T. 'New Nanyang No. 1' on the relevant date being the date of institution of the suit. The vessel got arrested at the instance of the plaintiff on the said date being 12th November, 1999.2. On 18th November, 1999 the vessel was released by furnishing of a security of Rs. 15.00 lacs at the instance of Power Steamship Co. Ltd. claiming to be the owner of the vessel M.T. 'New Nanyang No. 1'.3. The said Power Steamship Co. Ltd. ...
Khadim Shoe Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bata India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT602(HC),2005(1)CHN346
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Respondent No. 1, Bata India Limited (thereinafter referred to as 'Bata') is manufacturer of various rubber slippers commonly known as hawai. The petitioner, Khadim Shoe Pvt, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Khadim') is also a manufacturer of similar product and sales it in the market with the brand name 'Vibrato',2. Bata got a particular design of rubber slippers registered on 10th September, 1998 being the design No. 177386. Before the said design was registered Bata made a wide publicity in print media as well as in electronic media under the banner Hawai Revolution.3. Khadim applied for cancellation of the said design on the ground that the said design was published prior to the date of registration and hence such registration was liable for cancellation.4. Prior to initiation of the said cancellation proceeding before this Court, on 9th April, 1999, Bata filed a suit for infringement of 'their registered design as against the Khadim before this Court be...
Dipak Kumar Mahata and ors. Vs. Susoma Mahata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT649(HC)
Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 17.05.02 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Criminal Motion No. 31 of 2001 thereby setting aside the orders dated 18.06.01 and 27.06.01 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Durgapur in Case No. C.R. 339 of 1994.2. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the criminal case being C.R. Case No. 339 of 94 pending before the learned SDJM, Durgapur was started on the basis of complaint lodged by opposite party Susoma Mahata under Sections 494/109 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). It was a warrant procedure case and after evidence of witnesses for the complainant before charge and after charge the accused persons, who are the petitioners here, were also examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The examination under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was done on 1...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Calcutta Mint Employees Union and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT331(HC),2005(3)CHN376,[2005(107)FLR301]
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.In Re: CAN 6788 of 2004The Challenge: 1. This appeal has since been preferred against an order dated 8th June, 2004 passed in WP No. 1017 (W) of 2004 (AST 389 of 2004) by the learned Single Judge. The subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition relates to a proposal recorded in the meeting held on 23rd February, 2004 objected to by the writ petitioner, allegedly in violation of the agreement evidenced in the meeting dated 15th April, 1998 and 5th May, 1998, at page 23A, where 44 hours per week as normal working hours was approved with effect from 1st January, 1998 and overtime for increasing production was extended upto 54 hours a week. This was, however, made subject to the review and revision after consultations with the unions and associations and based on the demand supply gap then prevailing. The minutes dated 5th May, 1998 records that the 54 hours per week was sought to be implemented with effect from 1st June, 1998 subject to making consumables availabl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »