Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)85ITD215(Kol.)
The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 16-12-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.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 assessment years 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.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 assessing officer 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 Income Tax Act and consequently the business loss determine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(1)CHN448,2004(28)PTC474(Cal),[2003]47SCL445(Cal)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J. 1. This is an appeal from an interlocutory order in a copyright action. The order is dated 30th of June, 2003, when his lordship refused injunction to the plaintiffs/applicants who are also the appellants before us. However, the order directed furnishing of a bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 25 lakhs, such guarantee to be given by the respondents.2. The suit was filed in Calcutta on or about the 7th of May, 2003 by the plaintiffs, who are the authoress and her husband of the book named 'A Woman of Substance'. The copyright in that book has been, or is likely to be, allegedly infringed. Claims for infringement are also made with regard to two sequels of the said book and the serialised television version thereof which were produced by the authoress' husband namely the 2nd appellant.3. The complaint is against a serial called 'Karishma - The Miracle of Destiny' which has been financed and is quite ready to be produced and televised by the 1st Respondent who are a pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)88ITD35Cal
1. This Special Bench was constituted under Section 255(3) on the recommendation of the Division Bench of the Tribunal for considering the issue as to whether the amount received by the assessee in terms of the consent decree passed by the Small Causes Court is mesne profit and whether it is taxable as a capital receipt or revenue receipt. We have heard the parties and perused the record including the order of the "E" Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in I.T.A. Nos. 2690/C/97, 2953/C/94, 1413/C/97, 709-1 l/C/99, 1108/C/99 for assessment years 1990-91 to 1995-96 and 1997-98.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the appellant is a partnership firm. The appellant owned certain shares of Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. By virtue of its shareholdings, it had acquired the occupancy rights in respect of 21st Floor of 'Nirmal Building' at Mumbai along with car parking space No. 32 in the basement of the building. The appellant had entered into a Leave & Licence agreement i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)267ITR61(Kol.)
1. This Special Bench was constituted under Section 255(3) on the recommendation of the Division Bench of the Tribunal for considering the issue as to whether the amount received by the assessee in terms of the consent decree passed by the Small Causes Court is mesne profit and whether it is taxable as a capital receipt or revenue receipt. We have heard the parties and perused the record including the order of the "E" Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 2690/C/97, 2953/C/94, 1413/C/97, 1413/C/97, 709-11/C/99 for asst. yrs. 1990-91 to 1995-96 and 1997-98.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the appellant is a partnership-firm. The appellant owned certain shares of Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. By virtue of its shareholdings, it had acquired the occupancy rights in respect of 21st floor of 'Nirmal Building' at Mumbai along with car parking space No. 32 in the basement of the building. The appellant had entered into a leave & licence agreement in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)190CTR(Cal)467,[2004]267ITR422(Cal)
Kalayan Jyoti Sengupta J.1. This writ petition is directed against a notice dated October 21, 2002, admittedly issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). I think the text of the notice must be incorporated hereunder :'There are certain points in connection with the return of income submitted by you on October 29, 2001, for the assessment year 2001-2002 on which I would like some further information.You are hereby required to attend my office on November 11, 2002, at 12.30 p.m. either in person or by a representative duly authorised in writing in this behalf or produce or cause thereto be produced at the said time any documents, accounts and any other evidence on which you may rely in support of the return filed by you.'2. At the top of the aforesaid impugned notice, 'section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961' has been mentioned. This notice was issued on October 21, 2002. On receipt of this notice, the assessee/petitioner objecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2004]267ITR687(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Mr. R. N. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, has taken a preliminary point of maintainability of this writ petition saying that there exists alternative remedy. The writ petitioner should have resorted to that first and after having exhausted the same it should have approached this court. I have no hesitation to reject this submission on two grounds. Firstly, if the question of jurisdiction of any statutory authority is raised, the writ court in its discretion, as a rule, entertains such petition. Secondly, the theory of alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar. It may be a question of convenience and discretion of the writ court. At the time of admission of this matter this court in exercise of discretion has entertained the matter and passed an interim order. The question of jurisdiction should have been raised at the first available opportunity, namely, at the time of admission. It is not a question of inherent lack of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN187
Gorachand De, J.1. Professor (Dr.) Sukumar Mukherjee and Professor (Dr.) Baidyanath Halder were found guilty under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days by the judgment and order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in Complaint Case No. C-3882 of 1998. The learned Magistrate, however, found professor (Dr..) Abani Roychowdhury not guilty under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, acquitted him.2. Against the said order, professor Mukherjee filed Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002 and professor Halder filed Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore, whereas the complainant, Mr. Malay Kumar Ganguly, on the other hand, filed a revisional application being C.R.R. No. 1856 of 2002 for enhancement of the punishment inflicted upon prof...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)195CTR(Cal)161,[2005]273ITR16(Cal)
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. All the mandamus appeals were heard analogously as the facts and law involved in those appeals are the same and almost identical. Those three mandamus appeals arose out of the writ applications bearing No. C. O. 4959(W) of 1989, CO. 4960(W) of 1989 and C.O. 4961 (W) of 1989. By a single judgment dated August 8, 2002 (see : [2002]258ITR160(Cal) ), the learned single judge of this court, disposed of those three writ petitions against the appellants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned single judge, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellant.2. The writ applications were instituted by the appellant challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of reopening the assessment of the company for the years 1981-82, 1980-81 and for the assessment year 1973-74. By issuing the said notice, the Income-tax Officer proposed to reopen the assessment of the appellant-company for those th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)195CTR(Cal)598,[2005]274ITR25(Cal)
Soumitra Pal, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notices dated December 31, 1998, issued by respondent No. 2, seeking to reopen the assessments for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It is appropriate to set out paragraph 2 of the recorded reasons for such reopening, which is as under :'As requested for I am intimating the recorded reasons for reopening of the assessments for the assessment years mentioned above which is as under :Because of incorrect interpretation of accounts by the Assessing Officer the assessee got the benefit of loss of Rs. 34,40,715 for the assessment year 1992-93 which was carried forward to subsequent years and adjusted as below : Rs.Loss for the assessment year 1992-93 34,40,715Less : Taxable income for the assessment year 1993-94 adjusted 4,39,719___________30,00,996Less : Taxable income for the assessment year 1994-95 adjusted 1,17,295___________28,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)194CTR(Cal)386,[2005]275ITR155(Cal)
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the validity and/or legality of the notices all dt. 31st March, 2001 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 to 1996-97, the relevant financial years being the years ended on 31st March, 1990 to 31st March, 1996. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that all the notices and the proceedings initiated thereunder are without jurisdiction and illegal since none of the conditions precedent for assumption of the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the IT Act have been satisfied.2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of carriage of goods by ship. The ships are dry docked for carrying out periodical repairs. The said repairs are also mandatory for seaworthiness of the ship.The petitioner, as the assessee, had been claiming deduction for the expenditure on such repairs spread over in four years in all its assessments for several assessment years under the IT Act and the said c...
Tag this Judgment!