Kolkata Court October 2005 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Surya Kanta Dalmia
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Kol.)1
1. The Division Bench hearing this case had made a reference to the Hon'ble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Under Section 255(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (The Act) for constitution of a Special Bench.Accordingly, the Hon'ble President, ITAT was pleased to constitute a Special Bench of three Members to consider the following question : - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of introduction in the capital account of Rs. 3.46 crores against the sale proceeds of 5,153.8 Kg. of silver utensils claimed to have been sold by the assesee.2. The facts in the present case leading to the above issue are as follows : (i) The assessee is an individual and carries on business of share broker and dealer. The return of income was filed on 14.9.1998 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. During the course of assessment it was found by the Assessing Officer that as per capital account filed, the assessee credited Rs. 8...
Tag this Judgment!Som Datt Builders Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)280ITR229(Kol.)
1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Id. CIT(A)-XII, Kplkata dated 28^th September, 2004 for the assessment year 1998-99.2. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is one of the large Engineering Construction Company and executes turnkey projects in India and abroad. The assessee in this case filed return showing an income of Rs. 5,45,79,843/- and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) determining total income of Rs. 6,89,36,496/-. In the said assessment, deduction under Section 80HHB and under Section 80G amounting to Rs. 3,57,40,835/- and Rs. 76,500/- respectively was allowed. The said deduction under Section 80HHB was allowed on 50% of arbitration award issued by the assessee on 20.1.98, which was credited to the Profit & Loss A/c. for the assessment year 1998-99. Though the A.O. allowed the claim under Section 80HHB at 50% of the Net Profit arose to assessee on principal amount of Rs. 7,14,81,670/-. He disallowe...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.L. Dalmiya and Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Kol.)613
1. This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT.(A), Central-II, Kolkata dated 20^th February, 2003 for the block period 1.4.90 to 20.7.2000.2. Brief facts are that the assessee-Company is engaged in the business of execution of Civil Engineering and construction job throughout the country on a very large scale for a long time. A search & seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 20.7.2000 and on subsequent dates, wherein its Office, work sites, godowns and other premises were covered. In response to notice dated 5.2.01 under Section 158BC served to the assessee on the same date, the assessee filed the return in Form No. 2B on 14.6.01 showing NIL undisclosed income. Thereafter the assessment was completed by the A O.on the basis of books of accounts and seized documents and submission made by the assessee alongwith the supporting evidences.3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamadas Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN194
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The instant case relates to an application under Section 410 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.2. The grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows:A public interest litigation, being W. P. No. 1311 of 1999, was instituted before the High Court by one Nikhil Kishore Roy, alleging, inter alia, that there were publications in a Bengal daily, namely, 'Sambad Pratidin' on 12.06.1999 and 14.06.1999 respectively, under the captions 'Bhuobill, Bidhan Sabhaya Prosner Mukhe Congress Bidhayak' and 'Bidhayaker Biller Char Daktar Asol Na Nakol'. In the said publication it was alleged that the petitioner, as a Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, submitted forged and fictitious medical bills and fees for prescriptions to the tune of Rs. 1,65,530.30 with regard to the treatment of his wife, Smt. Alokananda Banerjee, and his mother Smt. Nirmala Banerjee, from 08.09.1998 to 10.11.1998. It was als...
Tag this Judgment!israful Haque and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT188(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged both the orders dated 22nd June, 2005 and 22nd August, 2005 passed by the prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) whereby and whereunder both the petitioners have been declared to be disqualified as being members of the Panchayat. The short fact is as follows :The petitioners and each of them are elected members of Surun-I Gram Panchayat, Post Office - Bariol, District - Uttar Dinajpur (hereinafter referred as the said Panchayat). The said Panchayat was constituted by 13 elected members out of which 8 members were elected with the denomination of CPI(M), 3 members were elected with the denomination of Congress (I) Party, and one (1) member was elected with the denomination of Nationalist Congress Party while remaining one (1) member was elected with the denomination of Forward Block Party. In view of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. Prakash Sales Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal142,(2006)1CALLT259(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. The above application is taken out by the plaintiff in a money suit for pronouncing a fiJudgment and decree for a sum of Rs.71.77,420.62. The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the sum of Rs.71,77,420.62. inclusive of interest for the goods sold and delivered. The case made out by the plaintiff in the affidavit in support of summons is that on diverse dates under the diverse invoices the plaintiff sold and delivered a large quantity of ball bearings to the defendant, the price of which was Rs. l,73,80,127.81. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 1,28,92,200.19 has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff leaving a balance amount of Rs. 44,87,927.62. on account of principal. The amount of interest has been claimed on the aforesaid sum at an agreed rate which came to be of a sum Rs.26,89,493.00 calculated upto 31st August, 2002.2. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Nadira Patherya in support of this application co...
Tag this Judgment!Vikash Enterprise Vs. Metflow Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 1(2006)CLT348
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. All the aforesaid three applications are heard together as the same are arising out of the same suit as mentioned above. Fact and law in issue of all these applications are inter connected and identical. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty to decide the same with one and common Judgment.2. The application being G.A. No. 2769 of 2004 has been taken out by the plaintiff above named for attachment before Judgement of the property as described in schedule 'B' which mentions premises No. 4/2, Middleton Street, Kolkata - 700 071 including office building, land, furniture, fixture etc.; and order of injunction from alienating and/or encumbering 'B' scheduled property mentioned in the suit in any manner whatsoever and, also for such further order or orders, The application being G.A. No. 3723 of 2004 has been made by apparently third party viz. M/s. Wellment Footwear Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for intervening in the suit for examining itself pro interesse suo and t...
Tag this Judgment!Tridip Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN198
Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. There visional application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12th April, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court (Special Judge, NDPS), Barasat in connection with Case No. N26/05 arising out of Rajarhat P.S. Case No. 83 dated 7.3.05 under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) and under Section 25/27/35 of the Arms Act thereby refusing prayer of one Chinmoy Mitra for return of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. WB-24C/ 4382.2. The prosecution story as depicted in the FIR lodged by S.I. of Police of Rajarhat P.S. is that, on 7th March, 2005 at 8.30 a.m. receiving source information police party of Baguiati I.C. kept watch at Badaka crossing near Indian Oil Petrol Pump on Megacity Road. At about 9.25 a.m. they noticed one cherry colour Tata Sumo and two motor cycles as per source information and when the police party challenged the vehicles, the said vehicles star...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prabha Agarwal Vs. Technofab Engineering Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT11(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this suit both the plaintiff and the defendant have taken out two separate motions for two different reliefs as against them. First mentioned motion being G.A. No. 36 of 2002 has been taken out by the plaintiff for pronouncing final Judgment on admission under the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the defendant: while the second application being G.A. No. 215 of 2003 has been taken out by the defendant for taking the plaint off the file and/ or revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. It is for the sake of recording and the recapitulation, it is noted that the plaintiffs application was once disposed of granting relief as prayed for ex parte. However, subsequently on the prayer of the defendant the said ex parte order was recalled.2. Thereafter, the defendant has taken out the aforesaid application for the said relief. Both the applications are heard together. Learned Counsel Mr. Banerjee, senior advoc...
Tag this Judgment!Madhur Poddar Vs. Ashok Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT133(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The Court : The aforesaid Motion has been taken out by the plaintiff, above named for appointment of Receiver over and in respect of the joint family properties more specifically described in annexure B' to the plaint with a direction upon the said Receiver to take symbolic possession of the same and also order of injunction restraining the respondents more specifically respondents Nos. 20 to 31 including their agents, servants and/or assignees in any way encumbering, alienating, disposing or selling joint family property more specifically stated in annexure B' to the plaint. The aforesaid application has been taken out in connection with the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming declaration that the deed of family settlement and partition dated 15th July, 1989 is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff; partition of the joint family properties belonging to the parties herein as recorded in the deed of family settlement setting aside of the partition of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »