Kolkata Court November 2004 Judgments
Nayek Paper Converters Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD144(Kol.)
scrutiny of the case made by AOOn the AO issuing notice under section 143(2)(i), the assessee realised that interest and penalty on sales tax and firm s income-tax were wrongly claimed in the original return.Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return and withdrew its claim on the aforestated items. The AO completed assessment under section 143(3)(i) on these limited issues. Subsequently, the CIT invoked section 263 and directed the AO to make comprehensive scrutiny of the assessee s case and termed the AO s order passed under section 143(3)(i) as erroneous and prejudicial. Held: The grounds on which the assessment made by the AO under section 143(3)(i) had been set aside by the CIT were not permitted or covered while making an assessment on limited issues envisaged under section 143(3)(i) because on issuing notice under section 143(2)(i) only the order under section 143(3)(i) can be passed and not the order of comprehensive scrutiny as enumerated in section 143(3)(ii). Therefore, r...
Tag this Judgment!Ruma Moitra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT343(HC),2005(1)CHN290
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for habeas corpus, the petitioner has sought for release, on setting aside the Order of Detention, of her husband Sri Manas Kumar Moitra, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, who has been detained on 24.06.2004 by virtue of an Order of Detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act, on 21.06.2004. The said Order of Detention together with the grounds therefor is contained in Annexure P-1 to the writ application.2. The background history leading to the above application is that two containers containing fraudulent export cargo of M/s. S. G. International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, meant for loading on the vessel M. V. THOR LONE, were intercepted by the officers of Dock Intelligence Unit (Prev.) on 15.11.2003 at Netaji Subhas Dock Yard after issue of the dock challan. As no re...
Tag this Judgment!Kolkata Municipal Corporation Vs. St. Josephs and Mary's School and An ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN132
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and is directed against order dated 15th December, 2003 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata in M.A.A No. 2793 of 2001 thereby disposing of an application filed by the opposite party No. 1 for condonation of delay in preferring the aforesaid appeal by holding that there was no delay in presentation of the same.2. The following facts are not in dispute:The opposite party No. 1 purchased the land in question from the previous recorded owner on 9th December, 1985 and thereafter on 21st April, 1988 filed an application for mutation. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authority mutated the name of the opposite party No. 1 in place of the erstwhile owner on 10th December, 1988. Subsequently, on 17th December, 1988, i.e. within seven days from the date of mutation, the Municipal Authority enhanced the valuation of the disputed property w...
Tag this Judgment!Md. MahasIn Sk. Vs. Sayeda Khatun Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3162
ORDERP.N. Sinha, J.1. This revision application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-6-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Murshidabad in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1995 thereby allowing the appeal in part and affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Case No. C. R. 272/92 and modifying the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for, one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for further two months imposed on this petitioner by the learned Magistrate to a sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year for offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.). Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the said sentence and order of confirmation of conviction imposed upon him, the petitioner has moved this Court through this revisional appl...
Tag this Judgment!Altaf HossaIn Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN534
1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th January, 1988 passed in connection with Civil Rule No. 2021 (W) of 1978.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal may be stated in this way.3. The writ petitioner acquired valid right, title and interest in the disputed land by virtue of a transfer deed dated 14th February, 1968 from one Karunamoy Ballav, who in his turn acquired interest over the said property by virtue of the sale deed dated 18th January, 1958 from the original owner Dharani Dhar Dutta and Nalini Bala Dasi, who were alleged to be the big rayats under the definition of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that after acquisition of title the petitioner got possession over the same and the local tahsildar duly mutated his name in respect of the said land and also accepted rent from the petitioner and granted valid rent receipt.4. The grievance of t...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT143(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. The prayers made out in the instant writ petition are as follows:a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing and/or commanding the respondents to release the petitioner's all retirement benefit for Rs. 1,70,488.50 on account of Gratuity, Rs. 11,364.00 on account of arrear salary and also balance amount of P.F. and E.P.F. of the petitioner + 18% interest per annum and thereby make the Rule absolute.b) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit all the original relevant papers and documents relating to the case before the Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of the case, so that conscionable justice may be done.2. Admittedly the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of Scottish Church Collegiate School and there is no dispute also that he joined the school on 1st September, 1960 and superannuated from service on 1st October, 1997. The petitioner admittedly possessed qualification of B.Sc. (Bio-Science) and it is also admitted tha...
Tag this Judgment!icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Maikaal Fibres Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN365
Arunabha Barua, J.1. The criminal revision arises out of the order dated 2nd September, 2003, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta whereby the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Case No. 4581 of 2003 under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.2. The revisional applicant, namely ICICI Bank Ltd. was the patitioner-complainant and it alleged commission of an offence by the opposite parties under Section 406/420/120B IPC.3. Accused No. 1 was the company, namely Maikaal Fibres Ltd. and accused No. 4 namely, Migrenda Jalan. Accused No. 3 is another company namely, Dinjoyee Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and accused No. 2 Mahadeo Jalan was the Managing Director of accused No. 3 that is Dinjoyee Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.4. The sum and substance of the allegations made out in the complaint is this:The accused No. 2 Mahadeo Jalan, was the Managing Director and/or the livewiare of accused No...
Tag this Judgment!Nopany Education Trust Vs. Additional Director of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD152(Kol.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal for the asst. yr. 1998-99 against the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, the main issue is with regard to the exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act.2. In this case, the assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Act. Originally, the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a).Thereafter, the same was taken up for scrutiny. The case of the assessee is that although the assessee-trust is running a school, but the assessee-trust was incurring various expenditure by providing aids and donations to different institutions which are mostly for non-education purposes. The list of such expenses has been incorporated in the assessment order. The assessee-trust has been earning profit by running the school. Therefore, the sole purpose of the trust is not education but for earning income. The assessee had incurred similar expenditure for non-education purpose from the asst. yrs....
Tag this Judgment!Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Vs. Mahendra Nath Memor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT229(HC)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. M.A.T. No. 3029 of 2004 is preferred against the same judgment out of which M.A.T. No. 1821 of 2004 has since been preferred. M.A.T. No. 1821 2004 is in the list and was being heard for sometime and remained heard-in-part.1.1. Mr. A.N. Banerjee, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, had mentioned this matter (M.A.T. No. 3029 of 2004) earlier and we had directed that the matter should be in the list but the records could not be traced out so long. Today the records have come and have been placed before us.1.2. By consent of the parties, M.A.T. No. 3029 of 2004 is treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing.1.3. This appeal has been filed after expiry of the limitation along with an application for condonation of delay. Despite objection on behalf of the respondents, and after having gone through the pleadings made out in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is thus disp...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jaya Computers and Software Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: [2005]59SCL587(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This winding up petition was admitted by me by my order dated 29th June, 2001. While admitting the winding up petition I suo motu stayed operation of the said order for a period of two weeks from the said date. The company preferred an appeal on 19th July, 2004. The application for stay was heard by the Division Bench on August 5, 2004. The operative part of the order of the Court of Appeal is quoted below:--In this view of the matter, we admit the appeal. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a). The appeal might be made ready. Affidavits are not invited to the stay petition. The allegations therein cannot be taken to be admitted. Stay is refused and the Company Court can proceed with the winding up process. On the above lines of reasoning, as and when the appeal might require to be decided and heard out, the parties will have liberty to mention it. Legible copies of the Paper Book might be kept ready for immediate filing, if that is possible and practi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »