Kolkata Court February 2008 Judgments
Neville De Noranha Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)390
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 6th March, 2007 of the CIT(A)-XIV, Kolkata pertaining to asst. yr. 2003-04.In this appeal by the assessee, the following grounds are raised: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO passed under Section 143(3) substituting the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities as the full value of consideration received of Rs. 3,34,42,244 as against Rs. 2,34,00,000 recorded in the record of sale. 2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the course of assessment, appellant had challenged the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities and the AO was informed of fair market value adopted under Section 50C where the Department had a right to pre-emptive purchase in lieu of the purchaser.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal filed by the assessee, as narrated at the time of hearing and also borne out by records are that the assessee individual owned a property No. 63/2/C The Mall, Kanpur, U.P...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Nre Coke Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)822
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata giving relief to the assessee.The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of low ash metallurgical coke at its plant at Khambhalia, Gujarat. For the assessment year in appeal, the assessee filed its return for asst. yr.2004-05 on 11th Oct., 2004 showing total income of Rs. 22,10,62,757.Subsequently, the assessee company filed a revised return showing net total income at Rs. 21,30,91,725. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment Under Section 143(3) of the Act, and assessment was completed on 29th Dec, 2006 at the figure of total income of Rs. 28,21,61,831 after making various additions. The assessee went in appeal against the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee against some of the additions made by the AO and sustained some of the additions. The Department is in appeal against some of the additions deleted by the CIT(A).2. Whether on the facts and ...
Tag this Judgment!Lipi Cinema Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)3CALLT92(HC)
Dipankar Datta, J.1. The second petitioner and his family members had purchased Lipi Cinema Hall (hereinafter the said Hall) from one Rashmoni Devi (hereafter Rashmoni) in the year 1995 upon payment of the consideration amount. The vendor Rashmoni had allegedly indulged in illegal dealing in contrabands and had been apprehended along with one other for possessing Ganja. Case N-38/94 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the said Act) was registered against them and after trial the accused persons were found guilty of offence under Section 8 of the said Act. Accordingly, they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50.000/- each, in default to suffer further period of six months rigorous imprisonment.2. After Rashmoni and the other accused person were convicted, the respondent authorities started an investigation under Section 68E of the said Act in respect of properties allegedly acquired by her from dealing in co...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and anr. Vs. Mohan Chandra Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN793
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. West Bengal Minor Irrigation Corporation Limited is a wholly undertaking of the State. The said Corporation is under deep and pervasive control of the State. 12 vacancies were sanctioned by the State. The Corporation prepared a panel in 1990 after holding a regular recruitment process. The respondent No. 1 before us was placed at Serial No. 12 in the said panel. The life of the panel expired after one year. No appointment was given from the said panel. The first empanelled candidate filed a writ petition in 1995. The learned Single Judge vide order dated April 13, 1995 directed appointment to be given to him. This order was passed upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties. Some of the panelists including serial No. 15 filed another writ petition and went before another learned Single Judge who, however, passed an order on April 27, 1995 directing the respondents to consider their cases for appointment. The Corporation filed an appeal against the first...
Tag this Judgment!JalauddIn Sk. Alias Kalu Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT198(HC)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 11.5.2005 and 12.5.2005 passed by Sri A.K. Senapati, Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad, in Sessions Trial No. 6(8) of 2004 arising out of Sessions Case No. Sessions Sl. No. 101/04 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was punished with imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that Alauddin Sk. came back to his house on 16th January, 2004 at about 11.30 a.m. Shortly thereafter, at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant, Jalauddin, brutally assaulted Alauddin with a sharp cutting weapon as a result whereof he died on the spot. The accused-appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Atasi Roy (Chandra) Vs. Dipak Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)CHN916
Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th January, 2006, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampur, Hooghly, in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2005.3. By the order impugned, the learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the petition of the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, on the grounds stated therein.4. The case of the petitioner is that she was married to the opposite party No. 1 on 8th December, 2002 and her marriage was solemnized according to the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 at Uttarpara, District: Hooghly, West Bengal.5. The specific case of the wife petitioner is that on 12th July, 2004 at about 10.45 p.m. her husband drove her out from their flat and she had to take shelter at her father's house, which is also situated at Uttarpa...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Samsad Ahmed Alias S. Shamsad Ahmed Vs. Iisco Steel Plant and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT94(HC),[2008(118)FLR472]
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. The controversy raised in the writ application relates to the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as Khalashi in ME (S) Department of the Indian Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Burnpur Works (now IISCO Steel Plant).The Senior Manager (F & A) of the said organization issued permanent engagement form on 2nd December, 2005. On 28th March, 2006, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Chief Personnel Manager (Works) seeking correction of his age as it was wrongly recorded in the permanent engagement form. This was followed up by submitting another representation on 27th July, 2006. Such correction was sought for referring to the date of birth, as mentioned in the Admit Card, copy of which been annexed and marked as annexure PI at page 17 to the writ application.2. Mr. Bose with Mr. De appearing as learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the authority concerned has been callously indifferent to the genuine griev...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. S.N. Engineers and Suppliers and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN868
Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against decree dated 15th December, 2006 passed in connection with Suit No. 61 of 1994 by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court. The said suit was brought by the present respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 and present appellant with relief as per prayers (a) to (h) of the plaint.2. The fact leading to filing of the said suit may be summed up thus:i) That the respondent No. 1 on the basis of agreement entered in between the respondents supplied 50MT of T-3 MS round materials to the respondent No. 2. As per agreement, the respondent No. 2 who was the plaintiff before the Suit Court raised bill and on the basis of the said bill, the respondent No. 2 who was defendant No. 1 before the Court below issued post-dated cheques.ii) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 2 who was appellant before this Court undertook to honour the cheques which will be produced by the plaintiff before the bank.iii) Subsequently, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sisirkana Guha and ors. Vs. Ayakar Grihanirman Samabaya Samity Limited ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN428
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of contract and is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 27, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 56 of 2004 thereby dismissing the suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the restriction imposed under Section 134(2)(d) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 as the same should be referred to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 95(1)(d) of the Act for disposal.2. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present appeal.3. The appellants before us filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents and the case made out by the plaintiffs-appellants may be summed up thus:(a) All that piece and parcel of 14 cottah of revenue-free land as mentioned in the schedule 'A' to the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Bom Das (Ashim Das) and ors. Vs. Kajal Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN446
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The defendants/petitioners by filing the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the Order No, 80 dated 12th April, 2006 passed by the learned 1st Court, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore in Title Suit No. 53 of 2000.2. By the said order the learned Trial Judge rejected the objection raised by the defendants/petitioners against the Commissioner's report and accepted the said report.3. It appears that the opposite parties as plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C. P. Code praying for local investigation. The matter was heard and after hearing both the parties, the learned Court allowed the prayer for such local investigation and proceeded with the matter by giving appointment to a learned Advocate Commissioner. The Commissioner thereafter proceeded with the work as per direction given in the writ of commission and submitted his report. Thereafter, such objection was raised.4. Apart from various oth...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »