Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2003]130TAXMAN524(Cal)
..... doubt to be made objectively and not on the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate authority. the figure which is arrived at has to be based on the material on record. there may be certain element of arbitrariness while estimating the market value and it is for that reason alone, that without there being any mandate of the act, the respondents have issued a circular that the acquisition of the property under chapter xx-c would be if the difference of the market value and agreed value shown in the instrument is more than 15 per cent ..... month and got permission from the owner for construction and development on plot 14/1. the increased rent is being paid by the tenants but the tenants could not start the construction probably due to financial constraints.(iii) although the total area under tenancy is only 1618 sq. mtr. but due to above agreement, the tenants can make full use of far on this land and would never vacate the premises.(iv) the tenants are already running their hotel in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioners assail the evaluation of two of the bids received by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) following a notice inviting tender. The project, as BSNL emphasises, is of great importance and is part of the upgrading of mobile telephone services in the country. The expanded description of the work in the tender documents is, 'Planning, engineering, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of infrastructure for 18 million lines of cellular mobile expansion project phase-VI in East Zone.'2. On this petition being received, an order was made on June 12, 2009 restraining the respondent authorities from issuing any work order to the fourth respondent. The order recorded that the financial bids in response to the notice inviting tender were opened on February 28, 2009 when it was perceived that the first petitioner had quoted the lowest rates, but by a communication of May 8, 2009 the first petitioner was informed by BSNL that on an evaluation of the bid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
SANJIB BANERJEE, J. Nearly two decades after the sanction of a scheme of arrangement, the transferee company has come to court complaining of a mistake on the court’Section part in the drawn-up order sanctioning the scheme not specifically including a jute mill that it says stood transferred to and vested in it under the scheme. To boot, the applicant claims that it discovered such mistake consequent upon a recent order passed by this court on a request made by it for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The transferor company is equivocal in its stand, but that may have little impact on how the application is decided. A non-party, which was not involved in the scheme and has not been impleaded by the applicant herein, had obtained leave to intervene in the present proceedings by an order made at an earlier stage. However, the order permitting such non-party to participate in the proceedings was not unreserved; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)45ITD22(Kol.)
1. This appeal raises the question whether the profit arising from sale of a capital asset could be added to the book profits shown by the assessee for the purpose of imposing tax under Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Preliminary objection. --This appeal was posted for hearing before a Special Bench constituted by the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 255(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. When the Bench assembled on September 8, 1992, to take up the matter, the Revenue presented a petition dated September 8, 1992, signed by Shri S.Halder, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle-XII, Calcutta, stating that there was no difference of opinion on the point raised in this case, that the decisions so far rendered by the Benches of the Tribunal in the cases of V.V. Trans-Investments (P) Ltd. v. ITO [1992] 42 ITD 242 (Hyd), Asst. CIT v. Lallacherra Tea Co. (P) Ltd. [1992] 42 ITD 446 (Gauhati) and Buttwelded Tools (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1991] 39 IT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Kol.)1041
1. These 4 appeals of the assessee relating to asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 involving some common issues are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The appellant is a branch of ABN AMRO Bank NV incorporated in Netherlands, with limited liability having its original office at Singapore. In India, the appellant is registered as a scheduled bank in terms of Schedule II of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, 1934. The main activities of the appellant in India comprise of accepting deposits, giving loans, discounting/collection of bills, issue of letters of credit/guarantees, executing forward transaction in foreign currencies for importers/exporters, money market lending/borrowings, investment in securities, etc., in terms of the existing rules and regulations governing such transactions. In the years under consideration, the appellant had three branches in India at Mumbai, Kolkata and New Delhi. There is an agreement between India and Netherlands for Avoidance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)68ITD148(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the block assessment for the block period of previous years 1987-88 to 27th August, 1996 passed under s.158BC of the IT Act, 1961.2. The facts of the case, in brief, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, at present, are that a search under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, was conducted at the office premises of the assessee, Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. at 4, Bankshall Street, Calcutta-700 001, and at its various premises on 27th August, 1996, and on subsequent dates. During the course of search various assets and documents were found and seized.The AO issued notice under s. 158BC on 31st January, 1997, calling upon the assessee to file its return of undisclosed income for the block period. The return was filed on 17th April, 1997. The AO passed the block assessment order for the block period on 28th November, 1997. On 27th August, 1996, the date on which the search commenced, the assessments for the two assessment years, namely, 1994-95 and 1995-96 we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side WP912of 2013 Simplex Infrastructures LTD.-Vs.Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata Before For the Petitioner : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee : Mr.J.K. Mittal, Adv.MRS.Nilanjana Banerjee, Adv.For the Respondent : Mr.S.B. Saraf, Adv.Mrs.S.Mitra, Adv.Heard On : 15th July, 2015 CAV On : 28.08.2015 Judgment On : 07.04.2016 Arijit Banerjee, J.: (1) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges a show cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 21st April, 2006 demanding service tax of Rs.65.25 crores (approx.) for the period 1st October, 2000 to 31st March, 2005 and also a hearing notice dated 13th August, 2013 issued more than seven years after issuance of the Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice, both of which according to the petitioner, are illegal and nonest in the eye of law. The Petitioners case:(2) The petitioner company was previously known as Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd., with effect from 8 November, 2005, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE C.P.No.575 of 1982 With C.A.No.187 of 2016 With C.A. No.715 of 2015 With C.A. No.97of 2016 With C.A. No.131 of 2016 With C.A. No.529 of 2016 Angelo Brothers Ltd. (In Liqn) Vs. Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. With Angelo Brothers Ltd. (In Liqn) Vs. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. Advocates for the Applicants In C.P. 187 of 2016 Bennett Coleman & Company Limited: Advocates for the Applicants In C.P. 715 of 2015, C.P. 97 of 2016 C.P. 131 of 2016 and C.A. 529 Of 2016: Judgement On: Mr. Jaydip Kar (Senior Advocate) Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Mr. S. Nigam Mr. Deepak Khosla Mr. Surya Maity 16th May, 2017. Aniruddha Bose. J.:1. By this judgement five applications arising in connection with C.P.No.575 of 1982 are being dealt with, being C.A. No.715 of 2015, C.A. No.97 of 2016, C.A. 131 of 2016, C.A. 187 of 2016 and C.A. No.529 of 2016. C.P. 575 of 1982 was a winding u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)89ITD44(Kol.)
1. The present appeal is filed by the revenue against the order dated 08-01-1992 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of an assessment order made Under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for A.Y. 1998-99.2. The solitary ground raised by the revenue in this appeal is as under:- "That, on the facts and in the circumstances Ltd. CIT(A) erred in law allowing expenses related to exempted dividend income violating provisions of Section 14A and also the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 115-O of the Act." 3. The A.O. has discussed the issue in his asstt. order wherein it is stated that the assessee is an investment company, who had also traded in papers during the year under consideration. He noticed that the assessee's paid up capital was Rs. 16,86,17,780/- and the assessee had taken loans to the tune of Rs. 21,51,38,978/- as reflected in Schedule 'C' of the Balance-sheet. During the year the investments have been shown at Rs. 11,24,21,048/- as reflected in Schedule 'E' of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... must have taken possession of the property in part performance of the contract and not in any other capacity or for any other purpose. a plea of adverse possession is contrary to acquisition of possession lawfully by the transferee and therefore unavailable to the possessor of the property. it is not necessary that possession should be with respect to the whole of the property or must ..... part performance of an agreement is required to be protected even if the period of limitation for bringing an action for specific performance has expired.16. but there are certain conditions which are required to be fulfilled if a transferee wants to defend or protect his possession under section 53-a of the act. the necessary conditions ..... had entered into an agreement with the defendant nos.1 to 8, 11 and 12 including gangadhar bajaj to purchase the suit premises having an area of 13 cottahas of land more or less free from all encumbrances but subject to the lease created by a deed of lease dated august 10 .....
Tag this Judgment!