Kolkata Court January 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkataii Vs. Vivek Mundra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
ORDER SHEET ITAT No.159 of 2013 G.A.No.3189 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II Versus VIVEK MUNDRA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 20th January, 2014. Mr.P.K.Bhowmik, Adv.for Appellant Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.Pramit Bag, Adv.Mr.C.S.Das, Adv.for Respondent The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue and upholding the views of the CIT (Appeal) by which he directed the Assessing Officer to treat the income of a sum of Rs.1,71,01,763/- as short term capital gain. The reasons indicated by the learned Tribunal include that The investment in shares were always valued by assessee at cost, thereafter, foregoing the advantage of notional loss or profit on diminution of market value of shar...
C.i.T.Centrali Cal. Vs. Kusum Products Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
ORDER SHEET ITA No.255 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T.CENTRAL-I CAL. Versus KUSUM PRODUCTS LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 20th January, 2014. Mr.S.N.Dutta, Adv.for the appellant Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Ms.Anupa Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Sutanu Karmakar, Adv.Mr.Suman Majumder, Adv.for the respondent The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 6th April, 1999 by which the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee on the basis of following reasons : 4. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Representative and have perused the orders of the authorities below and also the earlier orders of the tribunal dated 12th June, 1997 and 29th November, 1997. On perusal of the earlier orders of the Tribunal, we observe that the Tribunal took into consideration the scheme regarding credit for excise and held that right to receive the ...
M/S. Veeline Media Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.7,21,156/- and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. At the outset, ld. Consultant for the Applicant submits that during the period, 01.04.2009 to 23.01.2010, the Applicant had availed CENVAT Credit on the inputs that had been used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products. On being pointed out by the Department, they had reversed Rs.4.00 lakh towards the irregular availment of credit on in puts. Later, they found the total irregular availment of credit on inputs used for the manufacture of finished products, was Rs.1,36,701/-. The ld. Consultant also submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merits, but dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of Rs.3.00 lakh against the penalty imposed. It is his submission that they had already deposited R...
M/S. Maithan Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.1,96,861/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. At the outset, ld. Consultant for the Applicant submits that during the course of Joint Physical Stock Verification on 06.12.2007, certain shortages in the stock of finished goods were found in comparison to the stock mentioned in their Daily Stock Account (DSA). In the DSA, on that date, the stock mentioned was 1055.490 MT, whereas, the physical stock was found as 964.650 MT, leaving a shortage of 90.840 MT. The ld. Consultant vehemently argued that the said shortage had been calculated on presumption basis. He also submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merits, but dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of Rs.2.00 lakh. The ld. Consultant also submitted that in their reply to the show cause notice, they had categorically challenge...
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Poonam Enterprises and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
AP No.37 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED -VersusPOONAM ENTERPRISES & ORS.Appearance: Mr.K.K.Pandey, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Soumo Chaudhury, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : January 17, 2014. The Court : The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of Rs.13.28 lakh is due upon the termination of the loan agreement, including a sum in excess of Rs.3.84 lakh on account of defaulted instalments. The petitioner has detailed at paragraph 24 of the petition several organizations from whom money is due to the respondents. The respondents do not object to an order restraining the respondents from receiving payment due from the entities described at paragraph 24 of the petition without the dues of the petitioner fiRs.being discharged. Accordingly, there will be an order restraining the respondents and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or a...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
GA No.95 of 2014 CS190of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE M/S VINAR SYSTEM PVT.LTD.M/S.RAMSARUP LOHH UDYOG LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 17th January, 2014. Ms.H.Chakraborty,Advocate appeaRs.The Court :- This application appears to be a dishonest attempt on the part of the applicant in trying to scuttle the proceeding which is pending before this Court on a specious plea that a reference is pending before the BIFR. Mr.Banerjee , learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff refers to the summary record of the proceeding of the hearing held on 8th August,2013 by the BIFR wherefrom it appears that the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Allahabad Bank stated that action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act has already been taken against the company by PNB being the consortium bank. The State Bank of India also submitted in the same line as that of the Allahabad Bank. The order annexed to the petition shows that the BIFR had fixed the matt...
Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. M/S. Netwings Technologies Pvt Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.59 of 2014 APOT No.592 of 2013 AP No.1000 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus M/S.NETWINGS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 17th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Mr.Sounak Banerjee and Ms.Ruby Jaiswal, ld. Advocates For the appellant. The financial Court support : This given litigation by the would relate appellant to to the respondent in exchange of hypothecation of assets which are computers and other related iteMs.The respondent defaulted in making payment of instalments as agreed. In this backdrop, the learned Judge appointed a Receiver to make inventory and pass order of injunction restraining the respondent from using the hypothecated equipment. The Receiver went to take possession. However, from the report we find, she was given a cold reception. At this juncture the learned Judge should not have dispo...
Mukul Chandra Bhattacharyya Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Dipankar Datta W.P. No.850 of 2010 Mukul Chandra Bhattacharyya vs. Union of India & ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, Advocate Mr. Sukanta Das, Advocate Ms. Lopamudra Moitra, Advocate For the respondents 2 and 3 : Mr. R. N. Majumder, Advocate Mr. Sourav Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Supratim Bhattacharya, Advocate Heard on : July 5, 2013 and August 6, 2013 Judgment on : January 17, 2014 1. The petitioner, at the material point of time, was working as an officer of the United Bank of India (hereafter the Bank). In pursuance of a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Bank against him, the petitioner was dismissed from service on March 21, 1988. The order of dismissal was carried in appeal, unsuccessfully. The appellate authority by an order dated October 12, 1988 dismissed the appeal.2. Questioning the propriety and/or legality of the order of dismissal, since confirmed in ...
R. Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd Vs. Agrozan Commodities Dmcc and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.503 of 2013 With CS No.34 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE R. PIYARELALL IMPORT AND EXPORT LTD Versus AGROZAN COMMODITIES DMCC & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 17th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.R.K.Chowdhury, Adv..for the plaintiff. Ms.N.Adhya, Adv..for the defendant The Court: In this interlocutory application the petitioner has prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent no.6 from withholding the issuance of delivery order with respect to the goods comprised in bill of lading No.862195290 dated 30th September, 2011. At the receiving stage an order was passed on 25th April, 2013 directing the plaintiff to pay Rs.25 lakhs to the 6th defendant in cash by 6th May, 2013 and furnish a bank guarantee in favour of the said defendant for a sum of Rs.1 crore within 6th May, 2013. Upon making the above payment and furnishing the above security a direction was given upon the 6th defendant to iss...
Sri Bhabani Shankar Ganguly Vs. Tara Shankar Ganguli and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.3721 of 2013 With EOS No.8 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Extra Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.BHABANI SHANKAR GANGULY Versus TARA SHANKAR GANGULI & ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 17th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sumanta Biswas, Adv.Mr.Navneet Misra, Adv.The Court : This is an application filed by 3 and 4 Lindsay Street Tenants Association in a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking partition of the suit property. Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that they were inducted by the parties to the suit and different tenancies were created in favour of the various occupants of the suit premises. It is submitted that the parties to the suit are lessees of the suit property. On an earlier occasion the applicants filed an application for depositing occupation charges in which an order was passed on 7th December, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »