Kolkata Court December 2005 Judgments
Aluminium Small Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-26-2005
Reported in: (2006)287ITR111(Kol.)
1. The assessee is in appeal being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against his upholding the order of the Assessing Officer regarding the validity of initiation of proceeding under Section 147/148. Although the assessee-appellant has taken 6 grounds as per the grounds of appeal filed but the sole question revolves round the only point i.e., regarding the validity of the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147/148 initiated by the Assessing Officer as per the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the original appeal passed under Section 143(3)/182/158/251.2. In the original appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) although has given part relief to the assessee-appellant, vide para. 5 of his order at page 4, directed to delete an amount of Rs. 1,40,000 as addition under Section 68 for the assessment year 1988-89. At the same time, he issued direction giving restricted freedom to the Assessing Officer to reopen the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Assam Carbon Products Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Kol.)224
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A)-2, Guwahati, vide appeal No. GUWA-4/2003-04, dt. 24th Nov., 2003. (1)(a) That neither the learned AO was justified in disallowing the appellant's claim under Section 80-IB of the IT Act, 1961, to the extent of Rs. 1,82,10,073 nor the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance. (b) That there is no basis for the observation made by the learned CIT(A) that the appellant adopted colourable device for claiming exemption. (c) That the learned CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the documents produced before him. (d) That the learned CIT(A), on a proper consideration of the relevant material and basis, ought to have held that the appellant was entitled for full deduction under Section 80-IB of the IT Act, 1961, as claimed by it. 2. That neither the learned AO was justified in making a disallowance of Rs. 25,000 under the head subscription nor the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallo...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Himangshu Bikash Sarkar and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT89(HC),2006(3)CHN469,[2006(109)FLR1161]
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 6th December, 1987 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and an order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 10th January, 1994 copies whereof are annexures 'G' and 'J' to the writ petition respectively. The controlling authority held that the gratuity forfeited by the writ petitioner was payable to the workman. The Appellate Authority did not interfere. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:2. The respondent No. 1 was charge sheeted for fraud, dishonesty, acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company and acts subversive of good conduct and behaviour. After a domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service on 22nd December, 1983. The writ petitioner forfeited the gratuity payable to the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the misconduct of the respondent No. 1 was grave and involved moral turpitude. The respondent No. 1 challenged th...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Kumar Mahato Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT38(HC),2006(1)CHN650
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (the writ petition in short) challenging an order dated October 19, 2005 passed by the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Nadia concerning recruitment to the post of Gram Panchayat Karmee of Bablari Gram Panchayat under Nabadwip Development Block.2. The name of the writ petitioner is registered with the local employment exchange. The writ petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribes community. His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for recruitment to the post of Panchayat Karmee (reserved for Scheduled Tribes community) of Bablari Gram Panchayat under Nabadwip Development Block in the district of Nadia.3. The Gram Panchayat Staff Recruitment Committee issued letters asking the candidates to appear in the interview. The said Recruitment Committee, also, invited one Gopal Malpaharia to appear in the interview.4. All the candidates, including the writ petitioner and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pratima Ghosh and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT125(HC),2006(2)CHN586
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioners praying for revision of the order dated 25.02.97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 10/94 affirming the order dated 08.06.94 passed by the learned Authorized officer confiscating the seized vehicle No. WBS-3719 together with produce seized in connection with Forest Case No. 392/ MPP-I.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that during patrolling at Mahakal Chaupatti by Pabitra Mondal, Deputy Filed Director, Buxa Tigar Reserve along with Forest Guards Kartick Nandi and Bibhuti Bhusar Das, he found the aforesaid bus WBS-3719 crossing Chaupatti towards Samuktala. The bus was intercepted by the forest staff and after checking the same 39 bundles of Sal fire wood kept concealed inside the bus could be recovered. As the accused persons who were driver, conductor and khala...
Tag this Judgment!Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: [2006]286ITR470(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this application the petitioner company has impugned a notice under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By this notice the Commissioner wanted to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act suo motu having felt that the order of assessment particularly deduction for investment allowance by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the assessment years of 1980-81 to 1983-84. Ordinarily this sort of notice cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. At the ad interim stage, this Court did not grant stay of operation of the aforesaid impugned notice and asked the Commissioner to complete hearing of the matter but effect to the final order was not be given without the leave of the court.2. On August 23, 2005, the matter was taken up for hearing. I passed an order directing the parties to supply information relating to the state of affairs pursuant to the impugned notice. On the ...
Tag this Judgment!Simplex Concrete Piles (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Cal)219
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this application the petitioner company has impugned a notice under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. By this notice the CIT wanted to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act suo motu having felt that the order of assessment particularly deduction for investment allowance by the AO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the assessment years of 1980-81 to 1983-84. Ordinarily this sort of notice cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. At the ad interim stage, this Court did not grant stay of operation of the aforesaid impugned notice and asked the CIT to complete hearing of the matter but effect to the final order was not (to) be given without the leave of the Court.2. On 23rd Aug., 2005, the matter was taken up for hearing. I passed an order directing the parties to supply information relating to the state of affairs pursuant to the impugned notice. On the date of hearing it was informed that ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ273CAT
1. K.K. Mukherjee, a retired Chief Loco Inspector, Kharagpur, S.E.Railway has filed this O.A. being aggrieved by the order of recovery of Rs. 3,56,870 (Rupees three lakh fifty six thousand eighty seven only) (Annexure-A/4) from his D.C.R.G. due to "over payment" being wrong and illegal and has also alleged that the calculation of the amount of D.C.R.G./Leave Encashment/Commutation of pension in incorrect and bad.2. The case of the applicant is that whereas the respondents have alleged that his pay was stepped up during the period from 27.06.92 to 30.09.04, in reality his pay was correctly stepped up from 1.4.1988 in compliance of the judgement dated 14.12.92 rendered in O.A. No.984/1989. He has submitted that the benefit of stepping up of pay which he was granted by virtue of the said judicial order cannot be taken away from him by the respondents on their own and by doing so, they have violated statutory rules and the law of the land. He had also filed a representation dated 11.10.04...
Tag this Judgment!Phani Bhusan Roy and Sukumar Roy Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN203
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 12th November, 1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapur under Sessions Trial Case No. VIII of May 1986. By the said judgment the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part 1/34 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a direction to set off the period of detention in jail custody against the period of sentence. However, by the said judgment accused Urmila Roy alias Tobi Roy, Tarani Roy and Bhanu Das were acquitted. Moreover during the pendency of this appeal the appellant Phani Bhusan Roy expired and as such the appeal has been abated against him. Therefore the appellant before us at present is Sukumar Roy (convict).2. On the basis of FIR lodged by Pashupati Nayek, P.W. 1. The formal FIR was drawn up by P.W. 13, S.I. Sadhan Chandra Saha, who registered Nandigram P.S. Case No. 2 dated 11.08.1984 vide (Ext.1) series and took up the investigation...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Council of Science and Technology Vs. Commissioner of Custo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN9
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against order dated June 1, 2004 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata in an appeal preferred by the present appellant against the order dated June 19, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata.2. The following facts are not in dispute:(a) On 15th November, 2001, the appellant imported 12 cases of Model G-1518, AT-Planetarium Instrument System with 13 Panorama Screens and other accessories for the purpose of establishing a Planetarium in Lucknow. The petitioner filed the Bill of Entry for warehousing those goods on 14th December, 2001. The customs authorities granted permission for warehousing those goods on 21st December, 2001 and thereafter on 27th December, 2001 those were warehoused with the Central Warehousing Corporation, an undertaking of Union of India under Section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962.(b) Union of India issued an exemption notification being ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »