Kolkata Court March 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.
M/S. Apolo Security and Detective Services Vs. Commissioner of Service ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.4.02 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. At the outset, the ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of Rs.2.00 lakhs by 30.04.2011. He submits that even though they have deposited the amount on 29.04.2011, the said fact has not been brought to the notice of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) resulting into dismissal. 4. The ld. A.R. for the Department, has not disputed about the said deposit made by the Applicant. 5. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Consequently, with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 6. Since the Appellant has co...
Shri Gourav Goenka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE I.T.A.No.119 of 2012 I.T.A.T.No.199 of 2012 P R E S E N T:- The Honble Mr.Justice Girish Chandra Gupta The Honble Mr.Justice Tapash Mookherjee Shri Gourav Goenka Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax For the Appellant:- Mr.Ananda Sen, Advocate Mr.Ravindra Tiwari, Advocate Mr.R.K.Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent. Mr.Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr.Soma Chatterjee. Advocate. Heard on : 14.02.2014 Delivered on: 21.03.2014 Tapash Mookherjee, J:- The present appeal Under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 is directed against an order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A.Number 981/Kol/2011 dismissing an appeal preferred by the assessee. The facts and circumstances briefly stated are as follows:- The appellant Shri Gourab Goyenka, an individual, filed his Income Tax Return for the Assessment year 2007-08 claiming deduction of Rs.8, 00,000.00 (Rupees E...
M/S. Orissa Stevedors Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cust ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
1. These Appeals appeared for hearing on 27/06/13, 16/08/13, 13/09/13, 01/11/13, 06/12/13, 21/03/13 i.e. today. However, neither any one was present for the Appellants, nor there is any request for adjournment. Heard the ld. AR for the Revenue. 2. These eleven Appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.46/ST/B-I/2010 dated 28.10.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar, who by a common Order disposed eleven Orders-in-Original. 3. The AR for the Revenue submits that in the impugned Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed. He also submits that admittedly, the Appellant had filed ST-3 returns after its stipulated time, even though taxable services rendered, and hence, penalty is rightly imposable on the Appellants. 4. I find that the Appellants had though rendered taxable services during the period relevant, but they failed to file the statutory ST-3 returns within the prescribed period. It is not plea of th...
M/S. Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr of Central Excise Kolkata-iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit of Rs.4.88 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under C.E. Rule 15 (2) read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate Shri Ravi Raghavan for the applicant submits that the Ld. Commissioner has denied the CENVAT Credit solely on the ground that the invoices issued by their ISD on various input services are not eligible to CENVAT Credit considering the same input services relatable only to GTA services (outward and inward freight) for the period July, 2006 to March, 2011. The Ld. Advocate brought to our notice the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Page 546 of the order). He fairly submits that during the course of hearing before the Ld. Commissioner, they have submitted the list of the input services on which they have availed CENVAT Credit, duly supported by a certificate of Chartered Accountant. He submits that the credit availed on GTA services (both inward and ou...
M/S. B.S.N.L. Vs. Appearance
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. None present for the applicant despite notice. 2. Heard the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue. 3. This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.12.10 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty. 4. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant on the ground of limitation. He submits that even though the Order-in-Original dated- 27th August, 2010 was communicated to the applicant on 31/08/2010, they have filed the appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) on 16/08/2011. The Ld. A.R. submits that the statutory appeal is required to be filed in case of service tax matters under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 within a period of three months before the Ld. Commr.(Appeal). The Ld. Commr. (Appeal) can condone the delay by a further period of three months.-In the present case, the appeal was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory period of three months and the co...
M/S. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Bolpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Ld. Advocate submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing their application under Section 35F of CEA, 1944, directed pre-deposit of Rs.4.00 Lakhs. The applicant though complied with the said direction, but could not report the compliance to the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) resulting into dismissal of the appeal. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue does not dispute about the said facts and fairly accepted that the applicant had deposited Rs.4.00 Lakhs and the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) has dismissed the appeal without deciding it on merit. He has no objection in remanding the case. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage and with the consent of both sides and after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal. We find that the appeal has not been decided on merit and dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit. However, we find from the records that the appellant ...
Anamika Choudhury Vs. Kanad Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
ALP No.13 of 2013 with GA No.3768 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDIANRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Anamika Choudhury Versus Kanad Choudhury & Anr. Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 19th March 2014 Appearance: Mr.Jayjit Ganguly, Advocate Mr.P.C. Pal Choudhury, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Siddhartha Mitra, Sr.Advocate for the respondents Mr.Amitava Deb, Advocate for the petitioner in GA No.3768/2013 The Court: The application GA No.3768 of 2013 is treated as on the days list. The order dated 17th September 2013 passed by Patherya, J. in the application GA No.2773 of 2013 is set aside, on the ground that a vital subsequent order of 30th May 2013 was not brought to the attention of the Honble Judge. Only the order dated 16th May 2013 was placed. There is no order whatsoever and no circumstances till date for discharge of the executor. The testatrix Minati Choudhury made and published her Will on 23rd August 2012. There are two beneficiaries under it, her son Amit Ch...
Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. Vs. Raftar Coal Parivahan Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
A.P.No.201 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.Versus RAFTAR COAL PARIVAHAN PVT.LTD.Appearance Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 19, 2014. The Court : The respondent is not represented despite service of the petition and the supplementary affidavit. The petitioner claims that an amount in excess of Rs.4.07 crore is due in terms of the agreement, including a sum in excess of Rs.17.50 lakh on account of defaulted instalments. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has relied on photographs said to be of the heavy-duty trucks financed under the agreement, with wheels and other parts appearing to have been removed therefrom. The petitioner says that a receiver should be appointed to immediately take possession of the assets covered by the agreement since the respondent is selling off parts thereof to the petitioners prejudice. Since the respondent is not ...
Sm. Durga Bala Dhur and ors. Vs. Smt. Kalpana Dhur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
1 ORDER SHEET CS No.426 of 2001 GA No.3811 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SM. DURGA BALA DHUR & ORS.Versus SMT. KALPANA DHUR & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 19th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Pradip Kr. Dutta, Sr.Adv.Mr.R.L.Mitra, Adv.The Court: This application has been filed by the defendants for sale of their respective shares in the Serpentine Lane property at a consideration specified in GA No.993 of 2011. In an earlier application, being GA No.993 of 2011, the plaintiffs have prayed for sale of the property in question at a consideration of Rs.80 lakhs. The said application was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011 with liberty to take out an application for sale as and when the situation warrants. One of the conditions for dismissing the said application seems to be that the defendants group comprises of a widow, her son and daughter who would be receiving a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and t...
Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanjee and ors. Vs. Amstar Investment Pvt. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
GA No.783 of 2014 AP No.1483 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHREE SHREE ISWAR SATYANARAYANJEE & ORS.Versus AMSTAR INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 19th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv.Ms.Uma Bagree, Adv.The Court : Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioner was not represented on March 11, 2014 when AP No.1483 of 2013 was dismissed for default. The order dated March 11, 2014 is recalled and AP No.1483 of 2013 is restored to the file. GA No.783 of 2014 is allowed without costs. By consent of the parties AP No.1483 of 2013 is taken up immediately. In AP No.1483 of 2013, the following prayers have been made in the petition: (a) An order be passed deciding the mandate of the Arbitrator Mr.Jayanta Banerjee, in the arbitration between Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanjee & ORS.And Amstar Investment PVT.Ltd.; (b) An order be made appointing a substitute arbitrator i...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »