Kolkata Court October 2006 Judgments
United Bank of India and anr. Vs. Shyam Sundar Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Cal87
ORDER1. The appellants have impugned the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge declaring that there was a concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendants for installation and operation of a 5 KVA generator at Subodh Mallick Square branch of the defendant/ appellant No. 1 and permanently restraining the defendants from interfering with the operation of the generator and further restraining the defendants from installing any other generator at the said branch of the Bank.2. The short facts of the case, as it appears from the pleadings, are as follows:In order to ensure uninterrupted electric energy for smooth functioning of the said branch, the defendant Bank engaged the plaintiff/respondent for installing and operating a motor driven 3.5 KVA generator during power cuts. Subsequently, the Bank required a generator having more capacity.3. It appears from the records that there were negotiations between the parties for replacement of the said 3.5 KVA generator by a 5 K...
Tag this Judgment!Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited Vs. Heinz India Private ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN44
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above motion has been taken out by the plaintiff for interlocutory relief against the defendants and each of them for appointment of the Receiver for taking possession of the production master copy and the art works of the advertisement material lying with various television channels all across India including respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and to keep the same in his safe custody until disposal of the suit; for an order of injunction restraining the respondents and each of them and their servants, agents and assigns from publishing by telecast or otherwise the advertisement referred to in paragraph 10 of the petition or any publicity similar thereto and in any from reflecting adversely on the plaintiff/petitioner's product 'Horlicks' in any manner whatsoever; an order of injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 and its servants, agents and assigns from publishing any advertisement published in Ananda Bazar Patrika in Annexure 'E1' to the petition and fro...
Tag this Judgment!Dinabandhu Pal Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: (2007)293ITR199(Kol.)
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-XXXIX, Kolkata dated 13-1-2006, for the assessment year 2001-02. 1. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the alleged grounds. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly considered the submissions made and ought not to have upheld the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,87,253/- Under Section 271(1)(c). 3. For that further grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be taken at the time of hearing of the appeal.3. At the time of hearing before us ld. counsel for the assessee argued at length. He stated that before initiating the penalty proceeding Under Section 271(1)(c) the satisfaction of the A.O. is necessary. In the assessment order no satisfaction is recorded by the A.O. for initiation of penalty proceeding and, therefore, the initiation and consequently the levy of penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) is not warranted In support of his contention he has relied upon the following dec...
Tag this Judgment!Peerless Gen. Fin. and Inv. Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: (2007)107TTJ(Kol.)186
1. These two appeals by the assessee for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the other appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98 by the Department arise out of the same order of the CIT(A)-III, Kolkata, dt. 17th Feb., 2006. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in computing the appellant's 'book profit' for the purpose of Section 115JA of the IT Act for asst. yr. 1997-98 at Rs. 1,06,23,51,779 by making an addition of Rs. 1,20,39,00,000 to its net profit of Rs. (-)30,32,03,000 as per its P&L a/c for the said assessment year. 2. That, since the appellant's P&L a/c for asst. yr. 1997-98 was prepared in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956, as required by Section 115JA(2) of the IT Act and as the same has not been disputed by the learned AO or by the learned CIT(A), they were not justified in going...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Usha Martine Industries Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)104ITD249Cal
1. This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble President, I.T.A.T. in the case of M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. vide I.T.A. No. 1304 (Cal)/2000 for assessment year 1997-98 to consider the following questions: Whether, the provisions made for doubtful debts, advances & investments, i.e. for unascertained liabilities, falls within the purview of adjustments under Section 115-JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether the A.O. was justified to make adjust of Rs. l,56,00,000/- in this case in computing the books profits 2. The case was fixed for hearing on 5.5.2006 and on this date the learned A/R of the assessee raised preliminary objection against the question referred for the consideration of the Special Bench. He contended that the question framed has described the provision made for doubtful debts as unascertained liability. The question is referred with a pre-conceived notion that the provision for doubtful debts, ad...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha MartIn Industries Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Kol.)543
1. This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble President, Tribunal in the case of M/s Usha Martin Industries Ltd. vide ITA No. 1304/Cal/2000 for asst. yr. 1997-98 to consider the following questions: Whether the provisions made for doubtful debts, advances and investments i.e. for unascertained liabilities, falls within the purview of adjustments under Section 115JA of the IT Act, 1961 and whether the AO was justified to make adjustment of Rs. 1,56,00,000 in this case in computing the book profits? 2. The case was fixed for hearing on 5th May, 2006 and on this date the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee raised preliminary objection against the question referred for the consideration of the Special Bench. He contended that the question framed has described the provision made for doubtful debts as unascertained liability. The question is referred with a preconceived notion that the provision for doubtful debts, advances ...
Tag this Judgment!Falakata Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN142
Dilip Kumar Seth , J.1. These three writ petitions were heard analogously since all these three writ petitions involve certain common principles of law. Though the facts are different, though the questions that arise out of these common principles are different, yet there are certain communions of identity within the question to be answered. Therefore, though we have heard the common principles together in respect of the three writ petitions, but in effect we have heard the three writ petitions simultaneously one after the other.1.1. The learned Counsel for the respective parties had also addressed the Court accordingly. We, therefore, propose to dispose of these three matters by a common judgment dealing with the common principles in the judgment in Falakata Industries Ltd. and Anr. W.P.L.R.T. No. 348 of 2005. But we have dealt with the three cases on the basis of the respective facts involving different questions of law applicable to such respective facts, emanating from the common p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›