Chhattisgarh Court August 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income Tax Jabalpur Vs. NitIn Steel Private Limited
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(Application under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This reference has been filed by the Revenue under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the IT Act, 1961") to call for the question proposed and answer the same on merits.3. The question proposed is:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the power subsidy received by the assessee was a Capital Receipt, not allowable to be taxed within the meaning of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act, 1961?"4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (for short "the AO") noted that the assessee had received power and interest subsidy. He treated both of them as revenue receipts and added the same to the total income. The CIT (A), relying upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Gadia Wires v. CIT held that the power and interest subsidi...
Anand Alias Gudva Nageshiya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
T.P. SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3-8-2006 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (FCT), Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No.168/2005, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of 4 years’ aged child Aakash and concealing the evidence of criminal case, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month and to undergo RI for three years and pay fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for twenty days, respectively. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fate...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Jhaduram and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
Order (Oral) I.M. Quddusi, J 1. The appellant before us is the insurer of the vehicle. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.04.2009 passed in Claim Case No.03/2007 whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) (for short `the Claims Tribunal') has partly allowed the claim application of the respondent No.1 herein, awarded a sum of Rs.4,56,515/- as compensation and fastened liability on the appellant herein to satisfy the award. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 08.07.2006 at about 3.30 p.m. after purchasing fruits from the market, respondent No.1-claimant was returning to his house, which is situate in Jaijaipur, by his car bearing registration number CG00-ZB-1125. Near Baradwar, after answering the call of nature, when respondent No.1 was entering in the car, the driver of the said car has all of a sudden accelerated the speed of vehicle as a result of which he sustained grievous in his leg and became u...
Himmat Singh Bais Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) 1. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though he has been permitted to appear in the written examination conducted by respondent No.3/ Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short the "PSC") held in the month of November, 2009 for the post of Assistant Professor (Law), he has not been issued the call letter to appear in the interview and has been shown as ineligible vide Annexure P-8 on the ground that he has passed the M. Phil examination after the due date i.e. 22.6.2009. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that an advertisement (Annexure P-4) was issued by the PSC for the post of Assistant Professor for 32 subjects including that of Law, pursuant to which the petitioner had filled in the form before the last date fixed for it i.e. 22.6.2009. However, while the result being declared by the PSC, name of the petitioner has been included in the list of ineligible candidates with miscellaneous reasons vide...
income Tax Officer Raipur Cg Vs. Hira Steel Ltd Raipur Cg
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961)SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.1. This instant appeal arises from the order dated 29.04.2005 passed in I.T.A. No. 144/Nag/2004, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal'), Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [for short `the CIT (A)], Raipur, was set aside, allowing the appeal in part.2. This appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act, 1961') filed by the Department has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 38 lakhs was a trade advance and not a cash credit attracting provisions of sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"3. The assessee company is engaged in manufacture of sale of wire, rods, CTD bars etc. Return for the assessment year 1998-1999 was filed by the assessee decla...
Kantibai and Others Vs. Noharram and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
Oral Order (MISC. APPEALS UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) I.M. QUDDUSI, J 1. Since both these appeals have been filed against the impugned award dated 22.01.2010 passed in Claim Case No.54/2009 by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G), they are being disposed of by this common order. M.A(C).No.242/2010 has been filed by the owner of the Tractor- Trolley challenging the award dated 22.1.2010 so far as it relates to fastening of liability to pay compensation on him whereas M.A(C). 221/2010 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 07.05.2009 one Tractor bearing Regn.No.C.G.10-D/2897 and Trolley No.C.G.10-D/2897 which were being driven by Non-applicant no.2 Takeshwar in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, Manharan who was pillion rider of the said motorcycle died in the said accident. At th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Jabalpur Vs. Sitaram Anil Kumar Raipur
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
Order (Oral) (APPLICATION U/S 256(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Act, 1961 by the Revenue, on the following question: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payments totaling to Rs. 50,23,905.00 made in cash by the assessee were not hit by provisions of section 40A(3) and Rule 6 DD?" 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee was a trader in grains. There was a complaint by the AIG. E.O.I.B. Raipur that Shri Sitaram, one of the partner of the assessee firm claimed to have purchased rice for the value of Rs. 32,29,160/- from one M/s. Sureshchandra Ashok Kumar of Raipur, against 131 bills. On enquiry by the E.O.I.B, the Raipur party denied these sales to the assessee. It was further stated in the complaint that the payments were made by 123 bearer chequest which were in fact encashed by Shri Sitaram and his men. Thus, no real payments...
Sandeep Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
Oral- Order (Petition u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C) 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for modification of condition No.1 imposed under the impugned order dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure P-1) in the matter of release of vehicle. 3. The facts necessary for decision of the present case are that the petitioner is owner of tanker No. C.G. -07 C-2142, which was duly purchased by him from previous registered owner on 23.9.2010. The tanker was seized on 23.10.2010 by the police station - Churiya in connection with the commission of offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the E.C. Act") under Case No. No.248/10. The Addl. Collector, Rajnandgaon initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 6- A of the E.C. Act by issuing a show cause notice (Annexure P-2) on 3rd November, 2010. In the meantime, the police also filed charge sheet on 31st December, 2010 in the Court of Judicial Magi...
i-nd Synergy Limited and Another Vs. the Authorised Officer and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in this batch of petition viz. W.P.(C) No. 3112, 3110, 3113, 3114, 3115, 3120, 3121, 3122, 3123 of 2011, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners seek relief to the effect that the "Income Recognition and Asset Classification Guidelines" (for short `the guidelines') framed by the Reserve Bank of India (for short `the RBI'), be quashed and set aside as the same is contrary to the provisions of section 2(o) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act') and further, to direct the Reserve Bank of India to re-frame and lay down the guidelines in conformity with the said Act. Secondly, classification of the account of the petitioner No. 1 as non-performing asset (for short, the NPA'), be held as illegal. In the alternative, the petitioner has...
Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
(Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India)(Contempt Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India)1. W.P. (S) Nos.5043 of 2008 and 1690 of 2009 and Contempt Case (Civil) No.313 of 2008, arise from the same cause of action, thus, all the petitions are being considered and disposed of by this common order.2. Challenge in W.P. (S) No.5043 of 2008 is to the order dated 30-6-2008 whereby the petitioner was transferred as Assistant Grade III from the office of Executive Engineer (EandM), Sakri to the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Kota, on his own expenses, and to the order dated 2-9-2008, whereby the representation of the petitioner submitted against the order dated 30-6-2008 was dismissed with change from the word `own expenses' to ‘administrative reasons'. Further, the respondent No.2 may be restrained from passing any transfer order.3. Before filing W.P. (S) No.5043 of 2008, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »