Kolkata Court March 2009 Judgments

Mintri Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Cal)241,[2009]319ITR264(Cal)

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:For the asst. yr. 1989-90:(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that disallowance under Section 43B in respect of provident fund could be made in proceedings under Section 154 for rectification of intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a)?(ii) Whether and in any event the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that opportunity was granted to the appellant before passing the order under Section 154 and issuing the revised intimation and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?(iii) Whether and in any event the order under Section 154 and revised intimation both bearing the dt. 6th Feb., 1995 served on the appellant on 11th Dec, 1996 were barred by limitation and the Tribunal was justified in law in not deciding the said contention and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ?(iv) Whether and i...

Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Cal)62,[2009]182TAXMAN151(Cal)

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 50 lacs made on the basis of materials seized from a third party, the veracity and genuineness of which was not established by summoning and examining the parties concerned in spite of the appellant's specific request and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ?(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant was required to produce the concerned persons for examination and that the AO had no obligation/duty in that behalf or to prove the genuineness and veracity of the materials seized from a third party on which the Department was seeking to rely ?(iii) Whether and in any event, the Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the finding of the CIT(A) that the said sum of Rs. 50 lacs could, if at all, form subject-matter of assessment only in t...

Dilip Kumar Agarwal and Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009]314ITR291(Cal)

Soumitra Pal, J.1. The court : Let affidavits of service filed in court today be kept with the records.2. Since the orders impugned and issues involved are common, the two writ petitions have been heard analogously. However, for the sake of convenience I shall deal with the facts in W.P. No. 200 of 2009 (Dilip Kumar Agarwal).3. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the order dated February 11, 2009, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XV, Kolkata, respondent No. 1 directing transfer of the cases of Dilip Kumar Agarwal and Krishna Kumar Agarwal, the petitioners from Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 44(1), Kolkata and the Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 43(3), Kolkata, respectively, to the ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-Ill, Patna, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').4. It is submitted by Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that though pursuant t...

AshiruddIn Sk. @ Paltu Sk. Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J. 1. In a Sessions Trial the appellant Ashiruddin Sk. @ Paltu Sk. and another Pramila Marjit were convicted under Sections 302/364/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 2 years respectively with fine and default clause for abducting one Jabir Sk. in order that he might be murdered and for committing murder by intentionally causing death of Jabir Sk. and for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder.2. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence only the convict Ashiruddin Sk. @ Paltu Sk. preferred this appeal, so far as the other convict Pramila Marjit is concerned, we have been informed by the Learned Counsels of the parties that she has not preferred any appeal questioning the validity of her conviction. In this connection it has also been reported by the criminal section that no appeal has been preferred by the convict Pramila Marjit against her conviction.3....

Star Textiles and Inustries Ltd. Vs. Olive Tea Plantations P. Ltd. (No ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas82(Cal)

Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of Appeal Nos. 277 of 2007 and 299 of 2007 as both the appeals are directed against the common judgment dated April 20, 2007 in Company Petition No. 531 of 2005 (Star Textiles and Industries Ltd. v. Olive Tea Plantations P. Ltd. (No. 1) [2009] 149 Comp Cas 68 (Cal)). For the purposes of this judgment we shall make reference to the facts as pleaded in Appeal No. 277 of 2007.2. The company petition had been filed on the allegations that the company is indebted to the appellant in a sum of Rs. 1,15,59,525.86 along with further interest. It is alleged that initially in February, 2002 a short term temporary accommodation loan of Rs. 5,00,000 had been provided to the company. The company had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent, per annum. Thereafter, on a request made by the company a further sum of Rs. 86,91,000 was paid on February, 2002, as temporary accommodation. A sum of Rs. 5,49,400 was repaid by the company on Apr...

Ajoy Raut Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by General Manager, Ea ...

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a claimant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and is directed against an award dated 20th February, 2008 passed by the Vice-Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, thereby rejecting the said application.2. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal. The appellant before us filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 thereby claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his son, late Kartik Rout, on the allegation that on 7th April, 2005 the said Kartik, a student of class-VIII of Amar Bharti High School, was travelling from Konnagar to Howrah by Down Katwa Local train with a valid second class ticket to appear at the final examination of the school along with his classmate, namely, Ranjit Prasad, son of Shri Shiv Prasad of 185/314, Rajiv Gandhi Road, Konnagar, but before reaching Howrah railway station, the ...

Madhusudan Saha Vs. Rebati Rani Mukherjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This is a unique instance where the machinery of the executing Court was manipulated fraudulently by the decree holder/opposite party herein in recovering possession of the suit property from the judgment debtor in a very hush hush manner.2. Let me now give a brief background of the execution process hereunder.3. The plaintiff's suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement was decreed on contest on 26th September, 2006.4. Since the petitioner/judgment debtor was not satisfied with the said decree, he preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 127 of 2006 before the learned First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the said first appeal, an execution case was filed by the decree holder/opposite party herein for recovery of possession of the suit property from the petitioner herein in execution of the eviction decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. The process of the said execution case was, however, stalled on account of an order passed b...

Gobinda Saha Vs. Amar Chand Saha

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th April, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah reversing the judgment and decree dated 26th April, 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 574 of 1999, at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant herein.2. The propriety of the judgment of reversal is, thus, under challenge before this Court in this second appeal. Let me now give the short background of this case leading to the filing of this appeal hereunder:A. Initially the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant/respondent and his men and agent from entering into any portion of the suit property lying at premises No. 81/2A, Raja Dinendra Street, P.S. Maniktala, Kolkata-6.B. In the original plaint it was contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the suit premises. It was furt...

Adhunik Technology Private Ltd. Vs. Caretel Infotech Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 6 dated 7th February, 2009, passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby extending the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted on 7th January, 2009 till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. By the earlier order dated 7th January, 2009, the learned Trial Judge passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering with, disturbing or in anyway affecting smooth functioning of the plaintiff's business. It was further ordered that the defendant No. 1 should not make any disturbance towards the business of the plaintiff in respect of the letter of intent dated 28th April, 2008 by and between the plaintiff and the Reliance BPO or terminate the same or not to act contrary thereto till 7th February, 2009.2. In the past, against order dated 7th January, 2009, the appellant came up ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chand Bansal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Cal)128

1. The question in this matter arose is whether the implementation of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 against the assessee is correct.2. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:An order was passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. A return was filed by the assessee as per notice under Section 153A issued by the Revenue Department on 20th May, 2005 which was duly served upon the assessee on 24th May, 2005. The assessee filed a revised return under Section 153A showing income of Rs. 27,04,280 while in the revised return of income-tax it has been shown as Rs. 3,00,278. Hence, the order was passed assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 30,04,280. Therefore, for such addition of Rs. 27,04,000 as undisclosed income the notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued and served on the assessee.3.After considering the facts it appears that the Asstt. CIT held as follows:The assessee had in fact concealed the income by not showing the undiscl...