Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)98ITD158(Kol.)
1. This appeal is against the revisional order Under Section 263 passed by the CIT, Central-I, Calcutta for the A.Y. 1991-92. In the Grounds of appeal the assessee has taken several grounds but in sum and substance the assessee has objected to the legal validity of the CIT's order Under Section 263 directing the A.O. to withdraw the deductions Under Section 80HH & 801 which the A.O. allowed in respect of profits derived from a New Industrial Undertaking situated at Kankroli, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan. Before dealing with the grounds of appeal and the arguments of the rival parties it is necessary to set out the undisputed facts.2. The assessee is a Public Limited Company. It was carrying on the business of manufacture of Tyres and Tubes. For the A.Y. 1991-92 the assessee filed its original return on 31st December 1991 declaring income of Rs. 16,05,85,900/-. In this return deductions Under Section 80HH & 80I were not claimed. A revised return was thereafter filed on 30th March 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)287ITR111(Kol.)
1. The assessee is in appeal being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against his upholding the order of the Assessing Officer regarding the validity of initiation of proceeding under Section 147/148. Although the assessee-appellant has taken 6 grounds as per the grounds of appeal filed but the sole question revolves round the only point i.e., regarding the validity of the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147/148 initiated by the Assessing Officer as per the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the original appeal passed under Section 143(3)/182/158/251.2. In the original appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) although has given part relief to the assessee-appellant, vide para. 5 of his order at page 4, directed to delete an amount of Rs. 1,40,000 as addition under Section 68 for the assessment year 1988-89. At the same time, he issued direction giving restricted freedom to the Assessing Officer to reopen the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.862 of 2014 CS No.168 of 2009 Bowreah Jute Mills Private Limited Versus Hooghly Mills Company Limited & ORS.BEFORE: The Honble Justice Shivakant Prasad Date : 20th December, 2016 Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Sr.Advocate Mr.Sanjoy Bose, Advocate Ms.Pritha Bhowmick, Advocate Mr.Aniruddha Sinha, Advocate .for plaintiff. Mr.Sourabh Mazumdar, Advocate Ms.Vineeta Meharia, Advocate ...for defendant No.1. Mr.Ravi Kapur, Advocate Mr.P.K. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr.S.Rudra, Advocate ...for defendant No.4. The Court: Plaintiff had prayed for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated January 12, 2009 by directing the defendant No.1 to execute and register a deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff with further direction upon the defendant No.2 and/or the defendant No.4 to act in terms of the agreement dated 24th March, 1988 and to execute a deed of conveyance thereof; and also prayed for a d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET ITA NO.76 OF2009IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION(INCOME-TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T., CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA Versus NARAYANI & SONS (P) LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 28th July, 2016. MD.NIZAMUDDIN,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT MR.J.P.KHAITAN,SR.ADVOCATE, MRS.SWAPNA DAS, MR.SIDDHARTH DAS, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT The Court: The subject matter of challenge is a judgment and order dated 7th November, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1170 (Kol.) of 2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the revenue. The aggrieved revenue has come up in appeal. The following question of law was formulated on 20th April, 2010. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the Appeal of the revenue by disregarding that the initiation of penalty proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1992Cal169,96CWN890
ORDERSusanta Chaterjee, J.1.As suggested and agreed by the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties and in view of the similar points of facts and law are involved, this present case is taken up along with C. R. No. 6249(W) of 1979 and C. R. No.6250(W) of 1979. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12249 of 1989 (Gopal Lal Ganguly v. University of Calcutta) dated 12th September, 1982 that the cases pending before the trial Court should be heard expeditiously as far as practicable. It was submitted before this Court by the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties that in spite of repeated directions, the University Authorities have not filed all the relevant documents for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute. It has been recorded in the order dated 20-11-90 that Miss Nirmala Kumar Chaturbedi learned Advocate appearing for the University of Calcutta felt very much embar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1972Cal430,1973CriLJ162,76CWN486
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Sixth Subordinate Judge, Alipore, being Order No. 56 of the 10th November, 1970, in Title Suit No. 3 of 1964 (Sagarmal Bengani v. Pokarmal Gurudayal) rejecting the defendant's application under Section 17-B (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The facts briefly are as follows:On January 21, 1964, Sagarmal Bengani filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1964 before the Subordinate Judge, Sixth Court, Alipore against Messrs. Pokarmal Gurdayal for ejectment of the defendant from a godown at premises No. P-3, Brojodayal Saha Boad, Cossipore, on the ground of default in payment of rent since April, 1963. Onthe 27th March, 1965, the Court passed an order under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, striking out the tenant's defence against delivery of possession. On May 5, 1965, the tenant applied for relief against forfeiture under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1981)25CTR(Cal)16,[1981]132ITR720(Cal)
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.1. One Debendra Nath Das died on the 26th December, 1957. To the misfortune of whoever are his heirs--we are, however, not actually concerned as to that--he left certain properties. The question of valuation of his estate still lingers on in 1980, twenty-three years after his death and may perhaps linger on for an ultimate solution for a decade more.2. The original account in respect of his estate was filed on 9th April, 1959. The assessment was completed under the E.D. Act, 1953, on 29th of January, 1960. The accountable person preferred an appeal before the CBR and it must be stated that the question of valuation of the two properties which are the subject-matter of this reference was not a matter in appeal before the CBR. The appeal was disposed of by the CBR on 30th August, 1961. The deceased during his lifetime was the owner of several premises including, inter alia, premises Nos. 95 and 96, Ultadanga Main Road, and the said premises had been acquired by acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN7
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. Both the writ applications are taken up together as it has been submitted by the learned advocates appearing for the parties that similar questions of law and facts are involved in both the matters.2. The facts in relation to Writ Petition No. 14235(W) of 2003 are narrated for the purpose of appreciating the points involved in the said writ applications.3. The State of West Bengal granted a lease in respect of the disputed property at Kalyani Township in favour of one Nanigopal Saha for the period of 999 years on April 18, 1969. The possession of the disputed property was handed over to the lessee. Nanigopal Saha intended to transfer his leasehold interest in favour of the writ petitioner and as such an application for permission was filed on March 16, 1999.4. The Clause 9(f) of the original lease deed, granted by the State of West Bengal in favour of the said Nanigopal Saha, runs as under :'Not to transfer or assign the leasehold interest without the prev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. These three appeals arise out of three writ petitions which were dismissed by a common judgment and order passed by a learned Judge of this Court. We have heard these three appeals analogously since the facts are similar and the questions of law involved therein are identical and furthermore, the said appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants herein purchased the lands in question by executing several registered Deeds of Conveyance during the period commencing on and from 1985. From the records, we find that the lands in question were requisitioned under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act II of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act II of 1948) on 23rd September, 1975. The possession of the lands in question was handed over to Eastern Coalfields Limited on 18th June, 1976. The said lands were thereafter acquired under Section 4 (1a) of the aforesaid Act II of 1948 by publishing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
W.P.No.64 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Man Mohan Kedia versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 32(1).Kolkata & ORS.Appearance: Mr.A.Sen, Advocate ..Advocate for Writ petitioner Ms.S.De, Advocate .Advocate for Respondent Heard On:- 20.08.2014 Judgement On: - 29.08.2014 I.P.Mukerji, J. The writ petitioner manufactures paints and related products. He also deals in computer accessories. For the assessment year 2006 2007 he filed a return of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed on 23rd October, 2006. Total income was declared as Rs.3,29,860/-. Tax due thereon was shown as Rs.49,937/-. It was also declared there that advance tax of Rs.75,000/- had been paid. A refund of Rs.25,563/- was claimed. The previous or the financial year was 2005-2006 . According to the writ petitioner, he attached a note that Rs.17,97,336/- was received by him in that financial year as subsidy under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion Scheme, 1994. Th...
Tag this Judgment!