Kolkata Court December 2004 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Kumar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-27-2004
Reported in: (2006)284ITR104(Kol.)
1. This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), dt. 28th April, 2003, for the block period relevant to the asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1998-99 (upto 11th Nov., 1997) against which the assessee has filed cross-objection. Both, the appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a search under Section 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the residence and group concerns of the assessee on 11th Nov., 1997. The assessee vide his letter dt. 19th Feb., 1998, filed before the A.D.(Inv.), declared Rs. 50 lakhs as his undisclosed income for the block period and accordingly, filed his return for the block period on 23rd Oct., 1998, disclosing undisclosed income at Rs. 50 lakhs. However, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 75,63,300 vide order dt. 28th June, 1999 passed under Section 158BC(c)/143(3) of the IT Act and no appeal was preferred by the...
Tag this Judgment!Harun Rasid Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT262(HC),2005(1)CHN517
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Id. Judge, Special Court under the N.D.P.S. Act, 6th Court, Barasat in case No. N-1/ 1999 on 23.8.2001.2. Shortly put, and shorn of details, the prosecution case is that on 23.12.1998 at about 7.00 hrs, while accused Harun Rasid holding a steel can in hand was waiting in front of premises No. 19, Sadhana Ausodhalaya Road, Dakshin Dari, Calcutta - 48 for selling heroin to different customers, acting on an intelligence a batch of Officers of NCB, EZU, Calcutta intercepted him, expressed their desire to search him as he was suspected to carry and sell heroin. On their offer for an option to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer intimating that a Gazetted Officer of NCB was with the raiding party, the accused agreed to be searched before the Gazetted Officer of NCB. As a result of search after observing necessary formalities, 121 pap...
Tag this Judgment!Basana Dutta and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT67(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 3rd December 1999 passed by the Chairman South Dum Dum Municipality being the respondent No. 2 herein purported to be in terms of the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court in MAT No. 2139 of 1999 dated 30th September 1999. The controversy in the writ petition relates to the sanction granted by the Municipal authority to the revised building plan being No. 544 of 2nd January 1997. The fact of the case is briefly stated hereunder.2. The petitioners and each of them on or about 1994 entered into agreements for acquiring several flats which were then being proposed to be constructed, with the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as the confirming party and respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as the vendors. In terms of the agreements the petitioners and each of them agreed to purchase and the vendors as well as the confirming parties agreed to sell the respective flats having specified area ...
Tag this Judgment!Rafiqul Islam and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN428
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of two convicted persons and is directed against order dated 19th May, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Murshidabad in NDPS Case No. 22 of 2000 under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) thereby convicting the appellants under the said provision and passing a sentence of 10 year's rigorous imprisonment and a further fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the appellants were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The complaint on the basis of which the prosecution commenced was that the Investigating Officer along with Constable Saktipada Paul and N.V.F. persons namely, Ranjan Sarkar, Abdul Basar and Kazem Ali left for Nadaipur village to pursue information received from a source. They reached at the village at 12.35 hrs., and went to the rice mill of one Jalaluddin Sk. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Banerjee Vs. the Certificate Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC6,(2005)1CALLT525(HC),[2006]131CompCas85(Cal),(2005)IIILLJ85Cal,[2005]63SCL529(Cal)
P.K. Ray, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner a retired employee of Dunlop India Limited, a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, has prayed the following reliefs:(a) Writ and/or writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to act in accordance with law and to consider the representation of your petitioner and/or to initiate the certificate and/or recovery proceedings forthwith as against the said company and to realize the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with simple interest 10% per annum from 1st June, 1998 till the date of payment being the gratuity of your petitioner which has already been adjudicated by the Controlling Authority as stated hereinabove;(b) Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and/or commanding the respondent No. 1 to send the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from 1st June, 1998 till the date of payment being the gratuity of your petitioner to the Controlling Aut...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mritunjay Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN677
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. On 10th May, 2000 one Ramananda was found dead in his house at about 9/9.30 a.m. in the morning his head was detached from his body. The villagers discovered the deadbody and thereafter lodged FIR with the local police station. On the day earlier i.e., on May 9, 2000 the accused Mritunjay came to the house of Ramananda and victim in presence of the Prosecution Witness No. 1 advised Mritunjay to stay at night as the road was a forest road and it was not advisable to travel during night. PW.1 and one Kalipada met Mritunjay in the evening at the house of Ramananda and they left the place after a while. In the next morning at 9/9.30 a.m. they discovered the deadbody and lodged FIR with the police. While going to the police station they met one tea stall owner being P.W. 7 who stated that the accused Mritunjay took tea from his stall and when he demanded money Mritunjay threatened him with dire consequence and told him that he had finished one and the stall owner ...
Tag this Judgment!Subrata Naskar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN410
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two appeals are at the instance of the convicted persons and are directed against order dated 28th October, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipur, Dist-24-Parganas (South) in Sessions Trial No. 4(ii) of 1995 thereby convicting each of the appellants to suffer life imprisonment for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The learned Trial Judge further directed the appellants to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, for committing offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment, they were ordered to suffer further imprisonment for six months each. Such sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.3. The prosecution case is based on an FIR lodged by P.W.I, the brother-in-law of one Amar Sardar, the P.W. 4, at 10:50 p.m. on June 26, 1992. The case made o...
Tag this Judgment!Md. MoinuddIn and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN783
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of two convicted persons and is directed against order dated 28th August, 2001 and 29th August, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, 6th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in NDPS Case No. 37 of 1997 thereby holding that the appellants are guilty under Section 29 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act and consequently, imposing sentences of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the appellants. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is based on a complaint lodged by the Narcotics Control Bureau and the case made out in the said complaint may be summarised thus:(a) Acting on own intelligence, a group of officers of Narcotics Control Bureau (N.C.B.) led by a Gazetted Off...
Tag this Judgment!Ashima Dey Vs. Abhijit Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN233
Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. De facto complainant Smt. Ashima Dey has preferred the instant revisional application against an order of acquittal dated 10.1.2003 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Howrah in G.R. Case No. 867 of 1996 arising out of Shibpur Police Station Case No. 86 dated 16.5.96 under Section 325 of IPC.2. Mr. Utpal Kanti Mondal, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the de facto complainant lodged the FIR on the basis of which Shibpur P.S. Case No. 86 dated 16.5.1996 under Section 326/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) was started against the accused opposite parties 1 and 2 and after completing investigation chargesheet under Section 325/34 of IPC was submitted against the accused persons. In the trial that followed thereafter in the Court of learned SDJM, five witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution including P.W.I Smt. Ashima Dey and P.W.5 her husband Animesh Dey. These two witnesses are the injured pe...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Cal)39,[2005]276ITR49(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. 1. The points raised :This appeal was admitted on the following two grounds :'I. Whether, when a second revised return was filed under Section 139(5) of the Act within the specified period of one year from the end of the relevant assessment order (year), the AO is obliged to adjust the demand made under Section 143(1)(a) raised on the basis of the earlier returns and whether the Tribunal is justified in law in deciding the case without considering the legal position ?II. Whether, in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed a revised return on 7th Jan., 1991 claiming a loss of Rs. 2,49,05,044 and carry forward the loss of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 6,26,26,557 the Tribunal without deciding the question as to whether there was any reduction of loss consequent upon the filing of the second revised return on 7th Jan., 1991 could send the matter back when there was no dispute regarding the carry forward unabsorbed depreciation of a sum of Rs. 6,26,26,557 ?'Facts...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »