Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)2CALLT183(HC),100CWN900
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. These Appeals principally raising the question of constitutionality of West Bengal Land beforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Amendment Act) and West Bengal Land beforms (Amendment) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Amendment) Act were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the main matter namely Appeal from Order No. 400/92 arising out of Matter No. 1367/87 (Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) two applications for amendment have been filed questioning the Constitutional First Amendment Act, 1951 in so far as it purported to insert Article 31B; Sections 6,7,8 and 2 of the Constitution (44th) Amendment Act, 1978 the Constitution (66th) Amendment Act, 1991 in so far as 9th Schedule of the Constitution was amended by inserting West Bengal Act No. 1980 Item No. 251 therein and the Constitution (78th) Amendment Act, 1995 in so far as the West Bengal Land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)1CALLT292(HC)
Satya Brata Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for the following reliefs :-- 'a) Writ in the nature or Mandamus commanding the respondents not to disconnect the electric supply of your petitioner but to rectify the electric bills immediately:' 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is the owner of a factory, and for the purpose of running the factory, it has obtained electrical connection from the respondent company. According to the petitioner, it had been paying bills regularly, despite the fact that the bills had been erratic. The petitioner in a letter dated 21.11.96 as contained in annexure 'D' to the writ application stated as follows :-- '... According to the consumption pattern for the year 1995 our monthly bills should range between Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- while as against this we have received bills for amounts which are out of proportion. Those could only be termed as baseless and absurd. We have on occasions poin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)3CALLT348(HC)
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. I have the privilege to go through the separate but concurring judgments of S.K. Sen, J and S.B.Slnha, J.2. It is indisputable that procedural laws are meant to advance justice and the same must apply to Order 47 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A superior court apart from its power under section 229 read with section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure coupled with its power under Letters Patent as a matter of general policy may frame its procedural rules. This court has framed Original Side Rules as well as Appellate Side Rules of Procedure for civil cases as well as for petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In High Court of Judicature for Rqjasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paltwal, : (1999)ILLJ885SC the Supreme Court has set at rest any controversy as respects power of the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a bench hearing a case. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2000]246ITR29(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This is an application in the nature of a writ petition challenging' the order of reassessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to the coming into force of the latest amendment of this Act. The provisions of Section 147 of the said Act are as follows :'147. Income escaping assessment--If the Assessing Officer, has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Section 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :Provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT219(HC),[2001]106CompCas293(Cal)
A. K. Ganguly, J 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 12th December, 1990 passed by the learned trial Judge in Suit No. 780 of 1983.2. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff, Britannia industries Ltd. (hereinafter called. Britannia) is based on a bill of exchange purported to be dated 15.02.1983, for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000,00/- (Rupees one crore only). The said bill of exchange has been annexed to the plaint and marked A.3. As per the version in the plaint, the said bill of exchange was drawn by the defendant No.2, Metropolitan Construction (hereinafter referred to as Metropolitan) and was accepted by the defendant No.1 the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called, PNB). But this is contrary to the endorsement on the bill of exchange itself.4. However, further case in the plaint is that the said bill of exchange is duly endorsed by Metropolitan in favour of Britannia and is delivered to Britannia who thus becomes the endorsee and the holder of the said bill of excha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2001]251ITR306(Cal),[2001]252ITR550(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Range-21, Calcutta, empowering the inspectors of income-tax to make a survey under Section 133A of the Act in the office premises of the petitioners on February 22, 2000, and the survey by the inspectors of income-tax on the said date and also summons issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 131 of the Act dated March 28, 2000.2. The short facts of the case are as follows :3. The petitioner has been carrying on business of manufacture and sale of various food, household and medicinal products like purity barley, pearl barley, dettol, dettolin, steradent, brasso, silvo, etc. There are products, which are sold by the petitioners but not manufactured by it. In the usual course of its business, the petitioner from time to time issued debentures. The petitioner has to deduct income-tax at source from the payment made to the various person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)83ITD111(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming mostly the additions made in the block assessment completed under Sections 143(3)/158BC(c) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The search and seizure operations took place in the premises of the assessee-company on 22nd Jan., 1997 and continued upto 23rd Jan.,1997.On the latter date, the search was temporarily concluded. A prohibitory order was passed under Section 132(3) on one Shri B.P. Agarwal (stated by the assesses to be unconnected with the assessee-company) in respect of the sealed premises comprising the office-room of the assessee-company, its filing cabinet and certain computer rooms. It may be mentioned in this connection that on the same dates simultaneous searches were carried out by the Department in respect of a number of concerns belonging to the same group.On the same date again, certain documents of the nature of two bunches of loose sheets were found from the office premises of the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)183CTR(Cal)528,[2003]260ITR513(Cal)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J. Submission on behalf of the petitioner 1. The notice dated March 27, 2002, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'I. T. Act'), being annexure P2 to this petition, seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1995-96 is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said notice on various grounds. The notice that has been issued is subject to a proviso to Section 147 since issued four years after the end of the relevant assessment year and as such is incompetent and without jurisdiction. Until it is shown that the income sought to be assessed had escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to make a return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, it cannot be reopened. The reopening could be made only if the authority is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment. Though...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2003]132STC234(Cal)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The writ petitioner No. 1 is a branch of the writ petitioner No. 2, the State Bank of India which is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, for the extension of banking facilities in the country and for other public purposes. The bank has to perform various functions as per the directions issued from time to time by the Reserve Bank of India in keeping with the economic and monetary policies of the Central Government. The writ petition is registered as a 'dealer' under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1941 Act'.2. According to the writ petitioners, the policy notified by the Government of India under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, as amended from time to time, and the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, regulate imports into and exports out of the country and contain different incentive schemes and subsidies to build up foreign exchange resources of the country. Prior to July 4, 1991 th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)79TTJ(Kol.)915
1. The appeals filed by the assesses are directed against the common order dt. 16th Dec., 1998, passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs.1985-86 and 1986-87.2. The main effective common ground in these cases is that the lower authorities refused to carry forward the business loss of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 for setting off with his business income for subsequent assessment year on the ground that the returns for the said assessment years were filed late.3. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the lower authorities were not justified in refusing to carry forward the business loss claimed by the assessee. It was further contended that while refusing to carry forward the business loss the AO failed to take note of several judicial decisions to the effect that return of income filed under Section 139(4) should be deemed to have been filed under Section 139 of the IT Act and consequently, the business loss determined on the basis of such belated return ...
Tag this Judgment!