Jammu and Kashmir Court November 2000 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.
Mohammad AmIn Vs. State of J. and K.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2388
ORDERO.P. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15-5-1997 passed by a learned single Bench of this Court dismissing the Cr. Rev. Petition No. 6/89 in the absence of the respondent-petitioner herein.2. The contention of Mr. Qayoom is that the order impugned has been passed ignoring the mandate of proviso to Section 436 of Cr. P.C. Since the right of hearing has been denied to the petitioner, the order is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of the Court Under Section 561-A of the Code. In support of this he placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Prem Singh v. State, 1982 Kash LJ 55 : (1982 Cri LJ 297) and Kaushal Kumar Gupta v. M/s. Dev Son Pvt. Ltd., 1989 Srinagar LJ 211.Mr. Qadri, learned Senior AAG on the other hand argued that the proviso to Section 436 has been complied by the Court after the petitioner had appeared and engaged his counsel. Since the petitioner had the notice that the order discharging him has been challenge...
Peerzada Ghulam Ahmed Shah Vs. Shri D.K. Kapoor, Dy Registrar (Rules) ...
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2003(3)JKJ329
O.P. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him and four others by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on a complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court. By order dated 16.10.98 the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process Under Section 120-B, 447-A, 448, 454, 380 RPC against the petitioner whereas process Under Section 406 and 409 RPC in addition to the above sections was issued against four others who are non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5.2. It is a peculiar case where the High Court had to file a criminal complaint against the officers including the Minister incharge of the Estate. Facts disclosed in the petitioner are that House No. 6 Wazarat Road, Jamu was placed at the disposal of the Chief Justice for being allotted to Judges from time to time. The house remained in possession of Mr. Justice B.A. Khan since 1990 till his lordship was transferred to Madhya Pradesh in the year 1997. After the house was vacated, it was occup...
Lt. Col. J.S. Sekhon Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2002CriLJ783
ORDERO.P. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner a commissioned officer in the Indian Army was tried by a General Court Martial. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment besides cashiering. The sentence was pronounced by the General Court Martial on 24-9-1998. The proceedings and the findings returned by the General Court Martial have been challenged by the writ petitioner on various grounds. Few facts necessary before dealing with the grounds of challenge are that the petitioner was commissioned in the Army in December, 1975. He remained posted at Leh from June, 1993 to February, 1995 as Garrison Engineer. The charge against the petitioner is that during his tenure as Garrison Engineer, Leh, he with an intent to defraud entered into contract agreement with M/s. Surjeet Singh Sokhi on 29-11-94 for carrying out repairs of two DG sets installed at FRL Power House, Leh at the cost of Rs. 2.49 lakhs and for repair and replacement of parts of DG sets located at Nimmu at...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Muhammad Hussain
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR347(J& K)
B.P. Saraf, C.J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amrit-sar Bench, Amritsar ('the Tribunal'), has referred the following' question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 31,500 is of revenue nature and not of a capital nature and that the same is allowable deduction from the taxable income ?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1974-75. Mr. Anil Bhan, senior Central Government standing counsel, appears for the Revenue. None appears for the assessee.3. The material facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. The Municipal Committee, Srinagar, constructed a number of shops at Srinagar for the purpose of giving them on lease. It conducted an auction for that purpose. The assessee took one of the shops, being shop No. 9, on lease in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agya Wanti and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(J& K)375,[2001]248ITR641(J& K)
B.P. Saraf, C.J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar ('the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'Assessment year 1975-76 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the order made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 allowing thereunder the depreciation due in respect of the truck is not an order to rectify a mistake apparent from the records and is, therefore, unsustainable Assessment year 1976-77 : 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in holding that the assessee had not furnished the particulars as required under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the allowance of depreciation in respect of the truck ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. State Agro Development Corporation
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR487(J& K)
B.P. Saraf, C.J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the carry forward of loss determined on the basis of a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The material facts giving rise to this controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The assessee, Agro Industries Corporation, was established for promotion of agro industries and improvement of agriculture in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee did not file its return of income under the Income-tax Act within the period allowed under Section 139(1). No notice was issued under Section 139(...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Ahad Najar
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(J& K)273,[2001]248ITR744(J& K)
B.P. Saraf, C.J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in taking the view that the letter dated December 2, 1974, from the Central Board of Direct Taxes addressed to the Vice-President, Jammu Forest Lessees' Association, constituted an instruction so as to be binding on the Income-tax Officer 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the undertaking of the assessee constituted an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 80J(4) and that it is entitled to claim deduction admissible under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income from this undertaking ?' 2....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ziarat Mir Syed Ali Hamdani
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR769(J& K)
B.P. Saraf, C.J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Amritsar Bench, Amritsar ('the Tribunal'), has referred the following common question of law, arising out of the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated May 4, 1988, in appeals of two different trusts, to this court for opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee-trust, which failed to exercise the option under Clause (2) of Section 11(2) within the stipulated period, is entitled to the benefit under Section 11(1) in respect of unutilised portion of income ?'2. The two trusts arc Ziarat Mir Syed Ali Hamdani, Srinagar. and Ziarat Syed Hassan Mantaqi, Srinagar. Both these trusts are Muslim religious trusts formed prior to 1947.3. The material facts of the case of Ziarat Mir Syed Ali Hamdani Trust are as follows. This trust filed its return of inc...
Assad Sofi and ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1938
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. Four accused appellants on trial for charged offences Under section 302/34, RPC were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for having caused murder of Mohammad Sofi, by the District and Sessions Judge Budgam vide his Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26-2-2000 and 6-3-2000 respectively in Criminal Sessions case 1/96. Against this judgment/order of conviction/sentence three accused Assad Sofi, Rahim Sofi and Ahad Sofi have come up in this Criminal Appeal 2 / 2000.2. The prosecution case is that on 12-12-1995, while deceased Mohammad Sofi and his son Ali Mohd Sofi were engaged in discussions in their compound at about 4 PM in their village at Peth Sharan, Tehsil Beenvah, one Bashir Ahmad Dar happen to enter the compound and stand by them. On hearing the father and son, he laughed. Father and son took objection and the son Ali Mohd Sofi made him to go away from the spot. Soon after his father appeared on spot and objected to the conduct of...
Ghulam MohidIn Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(J& K)367,[2001]114TAXMAN543(NULL)
ORDERSaraf, CJ.By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('hereinafter referred to as the Act'), made at the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right that the trust was not entitled to claim exemption from tax under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for the income derived from the property held under the trust ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the object of the trust providing for promotion of science and technology and Muslim theology among Muslim intelligentsia, was hit by the provisions contained in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 ?'2. The assessee is a trust created by an Instrument of Trust, dated 8-1-1974. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Instrument of Trust, which contain the objects of the trust, read a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »