Kolkata Court February 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 Central Excise, Kolkataiv Vs. M/S. Kusum Products Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
CEXA No.13 of 2012 G.A.No.2723 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Central Excise) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-IV Versus M/S.KUSUM PRODUCTS LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 17th February, 2014. Mr P.D.Mukherjee, Advocate for the Appellant The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 26th March, 2012. The matter had, in fact, earlier been heard on 13th September, 2011, but the learned Members could not agree. The matter as such was referred to a third Member, who by his order dated 22nd February, 2012 has opined as follows: Undisputedly the proposal in the show cause notice was for imposition of penalty for contravention of Rule 4 and Rule 8 ibid, under Section 11AC read with Rule 25(1) ibid Ld. ComMr.in para (v) of para 2.9 of the impugned order, has found that Regarding the question of imposition of penalty, there is no suppression of facts before ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction CP468OF2009BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND MALVIKA SYNTHETICS (P) LTD.CP299OF2010BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND JET AGE FINANCE PVT.LTD.CP311of 2010 BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND KLASSIC APARTMENT PVT.LTD.CP11OF2011M/S.BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND M/S.VISHWA ENTERPRISE CP12of 2011 M/S.BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND M/S.TIRUPATI ENTERPRISES CP14OF2011M/S.BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND SAVITA BHARTIA CP158OF2011BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND M/S.CROMPTON INDUSTRIAL & CHEMICAL Co.CP566OF2011BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND INDRAJIT BALL CP252OF2012BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND ANSUYA J. DOSHI CP238OF2013BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND JAI BOTHRA (HUF) CP257OF2013BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND ANITA BOTHRA CP258OF2013BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND ANUJ BOTHRA CP331OF2013M/S.BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND SMT. PAYAL SINGHANIA CA353OF2013WITH CP566OF2011BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND MAHESH TEA CHEST CP391OF2013BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND HITESH BABARIA AND FAMILY, HUF CP404OF2013BENGAL WATERPROOF L...
Commissioner of Incometax , Kolkatai Vs. M/S. Panorama Developers Pvt. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And The Honble Justice Sudip Ahluwalia February 17, 2014 GA3281of 2013 ITAT180of 2013 Commissioner of Income-tax , Kolkata-I versus M/S.Panorama Developers Pvt.LTD.Mrs.S.Das Chandra, Advocate for the appellant Mr.R.K.Biswas, Advocate for the respondent The Court The Revenue has come up in appeal against a judgment and order dated 16th May, 2013 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against judgment and order dated 20th April, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The facts and circumstances would appear from the judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The learned CIT (Appeals) held that For the sake of convenience and at the cost of repetition the facts are that the Appellant who is the business of development of land as well as other activities. A plot of land attributable to their share at 145 Rash Behari A...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolxxi, Kol. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT No.192 of 2013 GA No.3287 of 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-XXI, KOL. Versus PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 17th February, 2014. For Appellant : For Respondent : The Court : Mr.O.P.Dubey, Advocate Mr.Ananda Sen, Advocate The Assessing Officer disallowed payment of lorry charges amounting to a sum of Rs.2,92,33,128/-. The income of the assessee arose out of hire charges. Naturally, there can be no income to the assessee unless trucks are hired. In case the trucks were hired, then hire charges must have been paid. Therefore, the disallowance of the hire charges to the extent of a sum of Rs.2,92,33,128/- by the Assessing Officer was disapproved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).He, however, disallowed 5 per cent of the total hire charges. Thus, 5 per cent of the sum of Rs.2,92,33,128/- worked out t...
Sree Balaji Coal Traders Limited Vs. Grewal Associates (P) Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.14 of 2014 CP No.8 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREE BALAJ.COAL TRADERS LIMITED Versus GREWAL ASSOCIATES (P) LTD APO No.15 of 2014 CP No.3 of 2013. SMJ EXIMP LIMITED -vsSHRE BALAJ.COAL TRADERS LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date : 17th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Janyata Kr. Mitra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Mukti Chandra Ghosh and Mr.Supriya Chatterjee Ld. Advocates for the appellants. Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amitava Das, Mr.Mojon Kr. Singh, Mr.S.Sengupta, Mr.N.Srinivas, ld. Advocates For the respondents. The Court :- These two appeals would relate to an order of refusal to admit two winding up petitions arising out of balance price of goods sold and delivered by the appellants to the respondent. The facts would depict, the respondent Company permitted M/S.Expo Minerals Pvt Ltd to run their factory for a limited period. The said Expo Minerals hand...
M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of Service Tax of Rs.15.05 lakh and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78, penalty imposed under Section 76(not quantified) and penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77, of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Authorized Representative for the Applicant submits that the Applicants Head Office had discharged the demand of service tax. In support, he has placed a Chartered Accountants Certificate dated 23.01.2014. He drew our attention to the Annexure to the said Certificate, wherein, the detail of payment of service tax discharged by their Head Office, in relation to the foreign vendors, namely, M/s. Axens and Technip, respectively, is clearly mentioned and could be correlated with the Annexure to the Show Cause Notice. The ld. Representative also submits that the entire amount of service tax had been paid, a fact established by the Chartered Accountants Certificate. Hence, the Applicant are not required to pay ...
M/S. Sai Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of Service Tax of Rs.25.74 lakh and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. At the outset, ld. Consultant for the Applicant submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit, but dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of Rs.15.00 lakh. He also submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not allowed an effective opportunity of hearing to them and the Directors appeal is still pending decision before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He, however, makes a fair offer to deposit 25% of the duty involved in the present case. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue has also submitted that the appeal was not decided on merit and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has no objection in remanding the case for deciding the...
Parekh Aluminex Ltd Vs. Followel Engineering Ltd and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.2339 of 2013 APOT No.372 of 2013 CS No.177 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PAREKH ALUMINEX LTD Versus FOLLOWEL ENGINEERING LTD AND ORS GA No.2340 of 2013 GA No.313 of 2014. APOT No.373 of 2013 CS No.180 of 2013 PAREKH ALUMINEX LIMITED -VS R.D.FAN LIMITED & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 14th February, 2014. Appearance:Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Advocates Mr.Pramit Ray and Mr.P.K.Jewrajka, Mr.T.Quasimuddin And Ms.Sanchita ChaudhuriAdvocates For the appellant. Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr.Soumava Ghosh and Ms.R.Kajaria Advocates for plaintiff/respondent no.1. Mr.Aryak Dutta and Mr.Shaunak Ghosh, Advocates for the Bank. The Court :- In APOT373of 2013 Mr.Abhrajit Mitra represents respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 are the mother and widow of the deceased Managing Director of the appellant company. They must be served the notice of appeal. APOT N...
Cygnet India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sporeimex Pte Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen C.S.381 of 2002 Cygnet India PVT.LTD.versus Sporeimex PTE LTD.For the Plaintiffs : Mr.Rishad Medora, Mr.Meghajit Mukherjee, MRS.Koeliya Banerjee Heard on : 11.02.2014 Judgment on : 14th February, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- The suit is instituted for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1. In spite of repeated opportunities being given to the defendant No.1 to appear and contest the suit, the said defendant No.1, has failed to enter appearance. The defendant No.2 appeared and produced certain documents in this proceeding in order to enable the Court to adjudicate issues involved in this suit. Although, in view of Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to a decree since the defendant No.1 although had the opportunity to appear and contest the proceeding did not enter appearance, howeve...
Banwarilal Sutodiya and ors. Vs. Tivoli Park Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
GA No.416 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE BANWARILAL SUTODIYA & ORS.Versus TIVOLI PARK APARTMENTS PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 14th February, 2014. For the plaintiff : Mr.Sanjib Kumar Mal,Advocate Mr.Atanu Ray Chaudhuri,Advocate For the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury,Advocate Mr.Soumya Ray Chowdhury,Advocate Mr.Satadeep Bjhattacharyya,Advocate Ms.Sayanti Nandy,Advocate Ms.Sayani Chatterjee,Advocate MRS.Lopita Banerjee,Advocate appeaRs.The Court : - Although the reason for not filing the written statement within the stipulated time is not well appreciated, but having regard to the fact that the suit has not progressed and an application for rejection of the plaint is pending, the defendant No.1, upon payment of cost of 600 GMs.to be paid by the said defendant No.1 to the plaintiff within a week from date shall be permitted to file a written statement within a period of two weeks thereafter. In default, the suit sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »