Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 29th January-4th February 2024

NOMINAL INDEXCommissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gopal Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 29Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Dredging Corporation Of India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 30Subham Roy Choudhury Vs The State of West Bengal & another.2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 31Paresh Chandra Ganguly (represented by LRs) v CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 32Nilanjan Mitra v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 33West Bengal Board of Primary Education & ors.- Versus - Md. Rafique & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 34ANIMESH BHATTACHARYA v THE BAR ASSOCIATION HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 35Suresh Dhanuka vs Shahnaz Husain 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 36Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of CIT's Order Speculating Possibility Of Understatement In Closing Stock Without Specific FindingCase Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gopal SharmaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 29The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of an order passed by the CIT speculating on the possibility of understatement in closing stock without a specific finding. The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyy has observed that the assessing officer has conducted a due inquiry and thereafter completed his scrutiny assessment. The tribunal also noted that the CIT, in his order under Section 263, has only observed that there is a possibility of understatement in the closing stock without a specific finding on the said aspect. Thus, the case on hand is not one such case where no inquiry was conducted by the assessing officer.Dredger Accessories Rules, Vessel Still In Use, No Case Of Unjust Enrichment, Duty Not Leviable: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Dredging Corporation Of India LimitedCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 30The Calcutta High Court has held that when the goods are still in use, the question of passing the burden of customs duty does not arise, and the question of unjust enrichment will not be applicable. The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that the appellate authority took note of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in which the Chartered Accountant again certified that all the goods brought under the cover of the three bills of entries are still in use by the Dredging Corporation of India. The Director (Operations and Technical) of the assessee certified that the vessel is in operation and has not been sold.Complaint Lodged Directly Before CBI Shows Misuse Of Power & Nepotism: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Conviction Of Govt Employee Accused Of Demanding ₹300 BribeCase: Subham Roy Choudhury Vs The State of West Bengal & another.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 31The Calcutta High Court has set aside a conviction under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, against the appellant, who was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500, for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 300 in the year 1997.The appellant, who was working as a dealing assistant at the Kalyani Vidhan Park Sub-Office was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs 300 for collecting the Monthly Investment Scheme (MIS) deposit amount from the complainant, whose deceased father and mother had maintained an MIS account at the said post office.In setting aside the conviction, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:The manner in which the complaint was lodged directly before the CBI officials and a trap being laid to indict the appellant was a glaring example of misuse of power and nepotism. Such nefarious activity on the part of the complainant is contemptuous without an iota of evidence on record apart from concocted and fabricated depositions that the appellant had claimed a bribe of Rs. 300/- which otherwise was the monthly premium to be paid against the accounts held by the mother and the deceased father of the complainant.[S.125 CrPC] Maintenance Provisions Being Welfare Legislation Need Not Be Construed To Be Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Calcutta High CourtCase: Paresh Chandra Ganguly (represented by LRs) v CBICitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 32The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the provisions for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC are welfare legislations and that they need not be proven beyond reasonable doubt as their criminal law counterparts. In refusing to quash a claim for maintenance against the petitioner, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:Conduct of wife/opposite party during her stay at her matrimonial house may not be the sole parameter to be considered before granting maintenance under 125 Cr.P.C. Said provision being a welfare legislation is not supposed to be construed what is likely to be construed to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt under section 498A I.P.C. or Under Section 406 of the IPC. I find that this is not a fit case where invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure the present...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 29th January-4th February 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags