Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2001]250ITR414(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated December 31, 1993, and order dated August 11, 1978, October 31, 1979, December 19, 1989, and the proceedings for charging interest under Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the order rejecting the applications for waiver and the Certificate Case No. 82 T. R.-24 of 1978-79 and 35 T. R-24 of 1979-80 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and to direct the respondents and also to refund amount paid by the petitioner with interest. 2. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder :One Steel Rolling Mills of Hindusthan Private Limited and Apeejay Structural Private Limited were amalgamated into one company, namely, the writ petitioner herein. The subject-matter of the writ petition relates tothe assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Interest is sought to be realised under Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1901 (in short 'the Act' hereinafter). So the writ petitioner herein filed an application f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT214(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by Messrs. S.P. Electronics, a partnership firm and its Managing Partner as petitioner No. 2 praying, inter alia, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioners forthwith, and also directing the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 4, Commercial Tax Officer to issue declaration forms and form 'C' to the petitioners immediately, and further, for declaration that the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 particularly Section 4(B) (b) (ii) thereof is illegal, and ultra vires to the Constitution and for consequential reliefs restraining the respondents from realising any sales tax/turnover tax from the petitioners during the period from 2.6.1988 to 1.6.1989 and directing the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 4 to issue 220 number of declaration forms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2005]144TAXMAN220(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. The points raised:This appeal was admitted on the following two grounds:'1. Whether, when a second revised return was filed under section 139(5) of the Act within the specified period of one year from the end of the relevant assessment order (year), the assessing officer is obliged to adjust the demand made under section 143(1)(a) raised on the basis of the earlier returns and whether the Tribunal is justified in law in deciding the case without considering the legal position?2. Whether, in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed a revised return on 7-1-1991 claiming a loss of Rs. 2,49,05,044 and carry forward the loss of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 6,26,26,557, the Tribunal without deciding the question as to whether there was any reduction of loss consequent upon the filing of the second revised return on 7-1-1991 could send the matter back when there was no dispute regarding the carry forward unabsorbed depreciation of a sum of Rs. 6,26,26,557?*Facts:2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)103CTR(Cal)360,[1992]194ITR114(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1982-83 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under the second proviso to Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the portion of property used by the bank ?'2. The facts in brief are that, in the assessment year 1982-83, the asses-see claimed deduction of Rs. 6,000 out of the house property income under the second proviso to Section 23(1) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim of the assessee as, according to him, four floors of the building stood let out to the bank and were not utilised for 'residential purposes'. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Income-tax Officer.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred a second appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”), 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against order dated August 28, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax (Appeal) being ITA No.1153 (Cal) of 2001 for the Assessment Year 1997-98 dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. 2. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) The assessee is a public limited liability company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and is assessed under the Act and the present appeal arises out of the appellant’s assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98 for which the relevant previous year was financial year ended on March 31, 1997. b) The appellant carries on business of manufacture of alloy free cuttings and special sheets, black and bright bars, electrical stampings, laminations, strip wound core...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)91CTR(Cal)147,[1991]189ITR336(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, limiting the time within which loss should be declared, the Tribunalwas justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss under the Act as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1976-77 for which the relevant accounting year ended on March 31, 1975. The question is about carry forward of loss. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for carry forward on the ground that the assessee had not filed the return of income within the time allowed by Section 139(3) of the Income-tax, Act 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal408
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by Golam Khan under Article 226 of the Constitution asking for a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus to quash and restrain the order dated 12th January, 1960 under section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1940 (Act XXXI of 1946).2. The order is by the Governor and reads as follows :'In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (XXXI of 1946) as amended by the Foreigners Laws (Amendment) Act, 1957 (XI of 1957), and delegated to the State Government in Notification No. 4/3-56-F. 1 dated the 19th April, 1958, of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the State Government is pleased to direct that the foreigner known as Mr. Gulam Khan s/o Shariff Khan an Afgan national (i) shall not remain in India after the expiry of 30 days from the date on which this order is served on him; and (ii) shall not thereafter re-enter India'. 2a. Admittedly the petitioner is an Afgan National. Admittedly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)75ITD36Cal
1. In these appeals the Revenue challenges the correctness of the conclusion of the Dy. CIT(A) that the fresh assessments made on 29th January, 1990 were barred by limitation.2. The appeals arise this way : Assessments were first made upon the assessee, a private trust, on 29th September, 1984, under s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee preferred appeals against the assessments and questioned their validity on two main grounds : (i) that the ITO did not compute the tax payable upon assessment of the total income, and (ii) that there was no order passed under the Act in consequence of which any tax on interest was payable by the assessee and, therefore, the notice of demand was equally invalid. The Dy. CIT(A) dispose of the first objection in the following words : "On this point the matter is set aside and restored to the file of the ITO who is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant." 3. The second point raised was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The above suit, EOS No. 3 of 2008, was originally instituted in Sealdah Court on 26 September 2007 by two ladies, namely Sipra Roy and Mun Mun Roy. As they failed to obtain any interim order after institution of the suit, they preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Judge of Sealdah Court in the District Court of Barasat. Even the Appellate Court of Barasat did not make any interim order, only the plaintiffs were directed to serve the notice of appeal upon the sole defendant, Fiona Angeela Roy (Das). 2. After Fiona Angeela Roy (defendant in short) came to know of the institution of the suit in Sealdah Court, she approached this Court by way of an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent for removal of the said suit from Sealdah Court to this Court. By an order dated 19 December 2007 a Rule was issued and eventually by virtue of order dated 16 January 2008 the suit was removed from the Sealdah Court to this Court and was renumbered as EOS No. 3 of 2008. 3. Since...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT385(HC),II(2000)DMC74
V. K. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th November, 1984 in Matrimonial Suit No. 14 of 1984 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd court, Alipore, 24-Parganasdismissed the suit filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife. The brief facts leading to the filing of the suit are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 4th July, 1973 accordingly to Hindu Rites. Right from the date of their marriage, the relation between the spouses became strained and estranged resulting in the appellant filing a suit for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 1976. This suit however was dismissed in 1978. On 26th November, 1982, the appellant obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent. Even though this decree was passed ex-parte, the respondent undoubtedly had the knowledge of the passing of the decree because she filed an application ...
Tag this Judgment!