Kolkata Court May 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.
Zigma Commodities Private Ltd; and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward5( ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE W.P.No.281 of 2014 Zigma Commodities Private LTD.& Anr. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3).Kolkata & ORS.BEFORE The Honble Justice HARISH TANDON Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Mr.Bhaskar Sengupta. .for the petitioners Prithu Dudhoria. ..for the respondents Judgment On : 08.05.2014 HARISH TANDON, J : Assailing the show cause notice dated 3rd February, 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The challenge to the said notice is basically founded on the ground that the Commissioner has not recorded his satisfaction relating to error in the order passed under Section 148 of the said Act affecting the interest of the revenue. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner filed a return under Section 143 (1) of the said Act declaring a loss of Rs.19,428/-. Subsequently a notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the said Act...
Pramod Kr.Bajaj Vs. Shew Ratan Bajaj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ORDER SHEET GA1418of 2014 With CS58of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRAMOD KR.BAJAJ Versus SHEW RATAN BAJAJ AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 8th May, 2014. Mr.S.K.Mallick,Adv.Mr.Supratim Laha, Adv.Ms.Priyanka Keshan, Adv..for the plaintiff. Mr.Amitava Das, Adv.Mr.Adil Rashid,Adv..for the defendant no.1 and 3A. Mr.Ramesh Chandra Prusti, Adv.Mr.J.N.Manna, Adv.Ms.Liza Som, Adv..for respondent no.4. Mr.R.Dutta, Adv.for defendant nos.5A, 5B and 5C. Mr.P.K.Sarawgi, Adv..for the defendant no.6. Mr.Shyamal Chakraborty, Adv.Mrs.S.Bhattacharya, Adv..for the respondent nos.7,8 & 9. The Court: This was an application for amendment filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to have served all the parties. By the proposed amendment two new parties were sought to be added. The plaintiff claimed that the proposed parties were also served through the advocate representing the defendant nos.2 and 4. The propose...
Srei Equipments Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the O and P Int. in the Vessels ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ORDER SHEET AS No.5 of 2013 GA No.3274 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PVT.LTD.versus THE O & P INT. IN THE VESSELS M.V.KIRAN & M.V.KABIR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 8th May, 2014. Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Ms.Arunima Moitra, Adv.for the plaintiff Mr.T.K.Bose, Sr.Adv.Mr.Somnath Bose, Adv.for Mumbai Port Trust Mr.Subhojit Roy, Adv.for the Receiver Mr.Rajarshi Rai Choudhury, Adv.for M. Pallonji & Co.PVT.LTD.The Court : Best endeavours were made to sell M.V.Kiran and M.V.Kabir. Advertisements were also caused to be published by the plaintiff in Sr.Lanka, Singapore and Bangladesh after advertisements were published in India. No offer or negligible offer has been received but no offer has been received from any of the foreign lands. The only offer received in fact is from one M. Pallonji & Co.PVT.LTD.for purchase of M.V.Kiran and M.V.Kabir at Rs.75 lakh each. Besides this no other offer has b...
Sas Investments Fiduciary Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ORDER SHEET CA No.654 of 2007 With CP No.553 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction IN THE MATTER OF: BHARAT MARGARINE LTD.[IN LIQN.].AND SAS INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY LTD.Versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 8th May, 2014. Appearance: Mr.R.Bachawat, Advocate, Mr.D.N. Roy Chowdhury, Advocate and Ms.Aruna Ghosh, Advocate. for the applicant. Mr.S.Sanyal, Advocate with Mr.S.Naznin, Advocate for the SBI. Mr.R.S.De, Advocate. for WBIDC. Mr.K.C.Garg, Advocate, Ms.S.Agarwal, Advocate..for Raliable Roadwings PVT.LTD.& Hydrochem Products India PVT.LTD.Mrs.R.Sikdar, Advocate. for Official Liquidator. The Court :-While passing the order dated 21.04.2014 the interest of SBI was considered and the calculation was made taking Rs.7.05 crores as base rate. In fact, interest, which has been calculated by the SBI, was also accepted. Thereafter, the applicant was directed to make payment of Rs.9.67 crores. While accepting the pa...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Durgapur Vs. Ashok Kumar Panda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ORDER SHEET ITA No.284 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DURGAPUR Versus ASHOK KUMAR PANDA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 8th May, 2014. Mr.S.N.Dutta, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Saurav Bagaria, Advocate with Mr.Pranit Bag, Advocate, Amicus Curie appointed by the Court The Court : The appeal has been taken up for hearing ex-parte. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24th April, 2001 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal of the Revenue. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred. The following two questions were proposed when the appeal was admitted. i) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that the incentive Bonus/Bonus paid to LIC Development Officer is a part of the salary and, therefore, excigible and/or includible as the part of income of ...
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Commissioner Vs. M/S. Noble Re ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/CKP/364/2010 dated 04.01.2011. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent had filed a shipping bill for export of 19500 WMT(Wet Metric Tonne)/17,745 DMT (Dry Metric Tonne) of iron-ore fines, declaring its assessable value @US $108 per DMT. The Department assessed the goods by enhancing its value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT and also the value was determined on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the Assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who had directed the assessment on DMT basis and allowed the appeal against the enhancement of value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the impugned Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided two issues: (i). Whether the export goods be assessed to duty on WMT...
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Noble Resources and T ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. These three Appeals are filed by the Revenue against respective three Orders-in-Appeal dated 29.03.10, 28.01.10 and 22.03.10, all passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, involving a common issue. Hence, all these Appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The facts common in all these Appeals, relate to determination of assessable value of iron-ore fines exported by the Appellants. The Department assessed the respective shipping bills on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Undisputedly, the period involved in all these three Appeals, were after 13.06.2008, where the export duty of iron-ore fines has been charged on ad valorem rate basis. The Assessment Orders were challenged by the assessee before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who after considering the arguments/grounds stated in the Appeal held that the said iron-ore fines be assessed to duty on the transaction value arrived at on the Dry Weight per Metric Ton (DMT) basis and not on Wet W...
M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Md) Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant, during the financial years, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, had imported Superior Kerosene Oil (here-in-after referred to as SKO) and availed the benefit of exemption Notification Nos.23/98-Cus. dated 22.06.1998, 20/99-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 and 16/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000. These Notifications exempt the kerosene oil imported by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for ultimate sale through Public Distribution System (PDS). Investigations conducted by the Officers of the DRI, however, revealed that the imported goods were not solely used for the purposes specified in the above Notifications. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the Appellant and adjudicated by the Commissioner, which culminated into confirmation of Customs Duty demand of Rs.412,17,25,807/-, interest (not quantified) and equivalent amount of penalty imposed...
Sri Hiralal Shaw Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2014
ORDER SHEET TA No.71 of 2014 APOT No.216 of 2014 WP No.337 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.HIRALAL SHAW Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE Date: 7th May, 2014 Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.with Mr.Soumabho Ghose, Adv.Mr.Nikunj Berlia, Adv..for the appellant/petitioner Mr.Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, Adv.with Md.T.M. Siddique, Adv..for the respondents Assailing the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2014 passed by a learned Judge of this Court disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, this appeal has been filed and in connection with the said appeal, an application for stay has also been filed. Both the appeal and the application have been taken up for consideration today. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order under appeal directed the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata to institute appropriate proceeding against the app...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2014
ORDER SHEET CP No.73 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.SHERA TUBE FORGE PVT.LTD.AND Sr.STEELS PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 7th May, 2014. Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Mr.Sagnik Basu for petitioning creditor. Mr.Amitave Das, Mr.Supratim Laha, Mr.Varun Garg for the company. The Court : This winding up application has been filed on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The case of the petitioning creditor is that in 2009 supplies were effected and bills raised. A part payment of Rs.1 lakh was made in 2012 and as the balance sum was not paid statutory notice was issued. Such statutory notice though received by the company, no reply has been given. Hence this winding up application has been filed and orders be passed as sought. Counsel for the company submits that supplies were effected in 2009 and an invoice raised in September, 2009. For non-payment the instant company petition has been filed in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »