Kolkata Court April 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.
Khaitan Paper and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Cal)447,[2005]273ITR234(Cal)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), whereby the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee for recalling the ex parte order dated November 29, 1999, in I. T. A. Nos. 1870 and 1871 (Cal) of 1993 for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 was rejected.2. The appeal was admitted by an order dated January 8, 2001, on the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal unlawfully and unjustly dismissed the appeals relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 ex parte thereby denying the assessee the opportunity of being heard and further compounded the injustice by declining to recall such ex parte order of dismissal despite the proof of the fact of the advocate's sickness incapacitating him to attend the hearing, the appellant-assessee not being at fault; and2. Whether it is not appropriat...
Mukundray K. Shah Vs. Director General of Income-tax (investigation) a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Cal)553,[2004]269ITR529(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This matter was called on for hearing on the last occasion. On the prayer of learned counsel for the Revenue the matter was adjourned for hearing today on the ground of non-availability of the learned Additional Solicitor-General. On that date the hearing could have been concluded but for the adjourment prayed for by learned counsel on the ground as above. Today he prayed for further adjournment. I feel the matter cannot be adjourned because it is a partly heard matter.2. Mr. Poddar concluded his submission on the last occasion. He submitted that there is no lawful reason for withholding 9 per cent. Reserve Bank of India Bonds, 99, valued at Rs. 7.2 crores in total. He submits that under the provisions of the block assessment the aforesaid securities were seized pursuant to seizure followed by preparation of panchanama. Block assessment of the petitioners have been completed. Even regular assessment has also been completed. Even after completion of all these...
Dy. Cit Vs. Damodardas Jerambhai Wadhwa
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)2SOT98(Kol.)
The revenue has filed this appeal raising the solitary issue that on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in not treating the income of Rs. 2,86,650 for the assessment year 1998-99 in respect of return of income which was filed after the due date as undisclosed income within the meaning of section 158BB of the Income Tax Act. They have agitated that the learned CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provision of section 158BB(ca) of the Income Tax Act.Search was conducted on Wadhwa Group on 24-8-1999 and no concealed income was detected by the Income Tax department. The income of the assessee comprised of dividend director's fees, interest, capital gains, withdrawal of N.S.S. etc. Block return was filed in response to notice under section 158BC. The assessment was completed by treating the income for the assessment year 1998-99 as undisclosed holding that the return which was due to be filed as per section 139(1) on 31-8-1998 was filed on 31-3-2000. Th...
S.G. Credit and Properties Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Calcutta Municipal C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN21
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The writ petitioners have challenged a memo No. AG/336/99-2000 dated 15.2.2000 being Annexure 'G' to the writ petition issued by the Deputy Assessor - Collector (South), Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as C.M.C.) The relevant portion of the letter is as follows :'Re : 62A. Alipore Road. Ward - 74Sir,From letter of C.T.T. dated 27.12.99 it is understood that the above-mentioned premises is thika -tenanted and vested with the State of West Bengal. Under the circumstances, you are, hereby requested to attend a hearing in the chamber of A-C, (S), Assessment-Collection(S) Deptt. 5, S. N. Banerjee Road on 14.3.2000 at 2.00 p.m. with all relevant papers, in respect of the mutation granted in your favour.'2. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee appearing along with Mr. Amiya Narayan Mukherjee reiterating the facts in the writ petition submitted that the officer of the C.M.C. had no authority to decide the title of the petitioners. During 1992 the writ petitioner p...
Heinz Italia Sr L and anr. Vs. Dabur India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal89,(2004)3CALLT10(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the CPC'); it has been filed by the defendants in C.S. No. 138 of 2003. It is for stay of the suit and dismissed of the interlocutory application (G.A. No. 1675 of 2003) filed by the plaintiffs in the suit.2. Plaintiff 1 is the proprietor of the registered trade mark 'GLUCON-D'. Under the trade mark plaintiff 2 is manufacturing and marketing an instant energy drink. Defendant 1 is manufacturing and selling an instant energy drink under the trade mark 'GLUCOSE-D'. Alleging that acts of defendant 1 amounted to infringement of registered trade mark and passing off, the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 2003 in the Court of the Additional District Judge at Gurgaon (Haryana). Such suit filed on February 19th, 2003 is pending. The present suit was filed on May 8th, 2003. Alleging that the matter in issue in the present suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the ...
Vidyawati Gupta and ors. Vs. Bhakti Hari Nayak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Cal258
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The sixteen plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 352 of 2002 filed the suit in this Court against the twelve defendants on July 24th 2002. The plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs :-'The plaintiffs pray for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and claims :-(a) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 11. their men, agents. servants and assigns from interfering with and/or invading the plaintiffs right title and interest in the various portions of the premises No. 33A, Jawhar Lal Nehru Road. Calcutta, 700 071 morefully stated in Annexure-'B' hereto.(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 11, their men, agents servants and assigns from invading any part of the common areas of the building at the said premises the Voltas air conditioning plaint situated in the basement in an area of 800 sq. ft. approx and the cooling tower on the roof as also the ducts connecting the Voltas air conditioning plant w...
Swapan Kr. Dutta and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ152Cal
ORDERArun Kumar Mitra, J.1. In this writ petition there are 263 petitioners. Admitted back ground in moving this writ petition is, inter alia, as follows:2. The writ petition appeared as Listed Motion before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice AMITAVA LALA on April 9, 2003. As it appears from the records Mr. Uttam Kr. Mazumder, advocate entered appearance on behalf of the Union of India. However, on that day His Lordship after hearing the submissions of both sides refused to grant any Interim order of injunction. His Lordship, however, passed two clear and specific orders. One is that the petitioners will have to deposit Court Fees for 362 petitioners out of 363 and the second is that the respondents will have to file affidavit-in-opposition by April 23, 2003 and the affidavit-in-reply by April 30, 2003 and thereafter the matter to appear being marked as for orders in May, 2003.3, As it appears from Office Note dated April 30, 2003, Court fees as per the direction of His Lordship was not deposited...
Niherkana Singha Roy Vs. Rekha Singha Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN658
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1.This revisional application has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The case of the petitioner is that Kalyani Police Station case No. 68/92 dated 25.04.92 under Section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started suo moto by the Officer-in-Charge of the Kalyani P. S. wherein it has been stated that on 23.2.1992 at about 23.50 hours he got an information over telephone that the house of Prabir Singha Roy was gutted. Accordingly police rushed to the spot and thereafter breaking open the door of that house with the help of firemen they rescued one Prabir Singha Roy and Rekha Singha Roy. Prabir Singha Roy was completely burnt. Both the injured were sent to J. N. M. Hospital, Kalyani. On the next day information was received from the ward master of the said hospital that Prabir Singha Roy died. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. On 25.4.1992 the post-mortem report was received wherein it was opined by the Doctor t...
Tushar Kanti Ray Vs. Second Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ1065Cal
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the workman, Shri Tushar Kanti Ray, the present application has been filed, challenging two orders dated September 20, 1993 and June 9, 1994 passed in Case No. 18/85/33(2)(b) by the learned II Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, being the respondent No. 1, in favour of the second respondent, the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., being the predecessor in interest of the CESC Ltd. By the first order dated September 20, 1993 the first respondent had approved the order of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), made by the respondent company. The second] mentioned order was passed on an application for review of the first mentioned order, whereby and whereunder the application for review was rejected.2. The short facts giving rise to the present' writ petition are stated hereunder:The writ petitioner being a workman was served with a show cause notice dated Ju...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Steel Authority of India Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1060],(2005)ILLJ944Cal
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Both sides are present. The opposite party has filed its opposition. Let it be kept with the record. Heard both sides over this application filed by Employees' State Insurance Corporation (herein to be referred as the Corporation), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated July 19, 2002, passed by the Judge, presiding over Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal in connection with Case No. 58 of 2002. The allegation of the Corporation as it appears from the instant application, is that the opposite party challenged the notice of claim issued by the Corporation and in connection with that challenge, the opposite party also preferred another application for temporary injunction to restrain the Corporation from claiming the amount or taking any step in the matter of realisation of the amount. The Corporation contends that the learned Judge by his order granted the prayer of temporary injunction without taking into account the mandator...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »