Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1991(53)ELT234(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This case arises out of a show cause notice being F. No. 574/CE/3/87 dated 27th March 1987 issued by the Directorate of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise). A writ petition challenging the aforesaid notice was moved before Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee J. On 18th August, 1987 an interim order was passed by Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee J. to the effect that the respondents were allowed to proceed pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice. It was further directed that the petitioner would be at liberty to submit their reply to the show cause notice without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondents were given liberty to conclude the proceedings and pass a final order on the proceedings. But the respondents were directed not to give any effect to or act upon or communicate the final order to the petitioner without leave of the Court.2. The writ petition came up for hearing before Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee J. On 14th August,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1990]183ITR532(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. This application for appropriate interim orders, amongst others, was filed in an appeal : [1990]183ITR528(Cal) (supra), which has been presented against the judgment arid order dated March 9, 1990, whereby a learned single judge of this court rejected the writ petition which was moved against three orders, all dated February 16, 1990, relating to the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-XXI, Calcutta, refusing to grant stay of realisation of the demand as disputed for the said assessment years pending disposal of the first appeal.2. The appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the said 'company') is, admittedly, an existing public company and carries on manufacturing, amongst others, of tyres and tubes and has claimed to be maintaining accounts on the basis of the English calendar year ending on December31 of every year and the method of accounting adopted is the mercantilebasis. It has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)1CALLT77(HC),1991(2)CHN321,[1994]80CompCas81(Cal),1992CriLJ1448
Jyotirindra Nath Hore, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 120B and/or Section 109/114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, being Complaint Case No. 1483 of 1990, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta.2. The General Electric Company plc., London (hereinafter referred to as 'GEC plc.'), is a well-known public company incorporated in the United Kingdom having its registered office at 1, Stanhope Gate, London. It manufactures electronics, electrical and power generation apparatus and systems. The General Electric Company of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'GECI') is one of the subsidiaries of GEC plc. in which GEC plc. holds 67 per cent. of its equity shares, registered in India under the Companies Act having its registered office at Magnet House, 6, Chitta-ranjan Avenue, Calcutta. It manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)41ITD582(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] dated September 19, 1990.2. The first and the main controversy relates to Rs. 2057.77 lakhs disallowed and added back in the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The relevant facts leading to the above addition are as follows.3. The assessee, a well-known public limited company, carried business of manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes in the previous year ending December 31, 1983, relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. The Company maintained its books of account on mercantile basis. The goods manufactured and produced by the asssssee were liable to Central Excise Duty and it is an admitted position that total liability incurred in the relevant period amounted to Rs. 8312.41 lakhs. The assessee actually paid towards duty a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1994]207ITR743(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in these proceedings is an order issued by the appropriate authority on June 5, 1987, under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to as 'the Act'), by which a portion of premises No. 2, Ballygange Park Road, Calcutta, has been ordered to be purchased by the Central Government for a sum of Rs. 72,25,086.2. Premises No. 2, Ballygange Park Road, Calcutta, covers an area of approximately 52 kathas. The owner of the premises is respondent No. 6. The premises were requisitioned on June 17, 1971, for the occupation of the Ministry of External Affairs under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. The Ministry of External Affairs, being respondent No. 5, is paying an amount of Rs. 1,300 per month to respondent No. 6 as occupation charges.3. On March 20, 1987, an agreement was entered into between the petitioners and respondent No. 6 under which the petitioners agreed to pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)120CTR(Cal)356,[1994]208ITR118(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. On December 23, 1981, the income-tax authorities carried out a search and seizure against Messrs. Veekay Properties Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as 'the company') and its two directors. The petitioner No. 1 (referred to as 'the firm') had its office in the same place as the company and the directors of the company were also partners of the firm. In the course of conducting the search at the company's office and residence of one of its directors, certain books of account and other documents relating to the firm were seized. However, no further action was taken by the income-tax authorities against the firm in connection with such seizures.2. More than five years later, the firm submitted a settlement petition to the Commissioner in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 disclosing its gross receipts by sale of space in a building constructed by the firm and offering to pay tax on the net profit at eight per cent. The petitioner also prayed for leave to pay the tax i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1994(48)ECC100
Ajit K. Sengupta1. This suit has been instituted in the year 1969 by Bengal Ruby Mica Supplies Co., a partnership firm, claiming a decree for Rs. 1,05,745.25. The case of the plaintiff who carries on business, inter alia, as a dealer in and exporter of mica, is as under:2. By a notification bearing No. 18/3/66-1 & RC dated June 6, 1966, the Government of India in exercise of its powers under Section 4A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, imposed duty at the rate of SO p. per kg on the export of mica of all types from India. By another notification dated June 15, 1966, the Government of India imposed export duty on mica of all sorts at the rate of 40% ad valorem instead of SO p. per kg. By a further notification dated June 27, 1966 issued by the Government of India, it was provided that the notification dated June 15, 1966 should be deemed to have come into force on June 6, 1966.3. At all material times a cess at the rate of 2 % ad valorem was leviable on all types of mica exported from Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)2CompLJ456(Cal)
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. Probodh Kumar Bhowmick filed a writ application on the Original Side of this Court questioning the order of suspension dated 8.7.04 being Annexure 'I' to the writ petition, as also a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.2. Dilara Begum, the petitioner in her application filed on the Appellate Side of this Court, had, inter alia prayed for a direction upon the respondents to produce her answer scripts in connection with her Part-II M. Sc. Examination in Anthropology for their re-examination as also for a direction upon Sri P.K. Bhowmick, Atul Bhowmick; Smt. Ranjana Roy, Sri Goutam Sarkar to pay compensation to her.3. The short facts, leading to the applications, are as follows:The petitioner, Probodh Kumar Bhowmick, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner has been a Professor of Anthropology of the Calcutta University from 1976. He is to superannuate on 30th September, 1944. On 20th May, 1994 he received a notice issued by the Advocate on Record of Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1996]85CompCas808(Cal)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the two amendments made by the Reserve Bank of India to the Residuary Non-Banking Companies (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1987, which were framed by the Reserve Bank of India in 1987 in exercise of the powers under Sections 45J and 45K of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The impugned amendments have been made through two notifications dated April 10, 1993, and April 19, 1993. The impugned amendments purport to have been made under Sections 45J, 45K and 45L of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.2. The petitioner-company carries on the business, inter alia, of offering various small savings schemes to the public at large, Under the said scheme, moneys are paid by the subscribers in lump sum or in instalments and the subscribers get back the said money at the end of a contractually stipulated maturity period along with interest accrued thereon and certain guaranteed accretio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ314Cal
D. Basu, J.1. Though the facts is this case under Article 226 if the Constitution are short, serious questions of few have been raised.2. The petitioner, a sub-gunner under the employ of respondent 1, the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, was on 5 January 1961, convicted of an offence under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, instituted on private complaint and sentenced to a fine and, in default, to imprisonment. Two years later, on 28 March 1963. he was suspended and on 4 April 1963, he was served with the order of respondent 2, the Traffic Manager of the Commissioners, removing the petitioner from service. It would be useful to reproduce that order (annexure A to the petition) at once:Whereas Baleswar Singh, sub-gunner, was convicted on a criminal charge under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment on 6 January 1961 which was confirmed by the appellate Court;And whereas it is considered that the ...
Tag this Judgment!