Jammu and Kashmir Court June 2000 Judgments

Mohammad Sultan Mir Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2001CriLJ301

ORDERSyed Bashir Uddin, J.1. One Ali Mohammad Mir S/o Saif-ullah Mir R/o Dardpora Kupwara, was arrested by BSF on 9-8-1990 from Kralapora Market, Kupwara. The petitioner and relatives of said Ali Mohammad Mir approached BSF and S.P. Executive State Police at Kupwara and D.I.G. Baramulla. The detenue was not released. To secure liberty and freedom of said Ali Mohammad Mir, unless cause shown, Habeas Corpus Petition No. 546/91 was filed. High Court directed respondents to produce the said detenue in Court. Respondents failed to file objections and show cause. This petition was disposed of with the direction :-I, therefore, command the respondents to release the detenue, Ali Mohd Mir son of Saif-ullah Mir R/o Dardapora, Kupwara forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in connection with some other offence or case....2. The detenue was not set free. Then instant Habeas Corpus Petition (197/92) was filed. Inter alia following reliefs are prayed for :-. With a further prayer to consti...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

B.P. Saraf, Chief Justice 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ('Act'),the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ,Amritsar Bench, Amritsar ('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 Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in providing tea to its customers was not in the nature of entertainment expenditure as contemplated by Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. We have heard Mr.Anil Bhan, learned counsel for the revenue. None appears for the assessee.3. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1973-74. The dispute is about the allowability of expenditure of a sum of Rs.10,338 incurred by the assessee in the relevant previous year on providing tea to its staff and customers. The total expenditure incurred on this account was Rs.13,338. The Income-tax Officer allow...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alkeensons Agencies

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: (2000)164CTR(J& K)605,[2000]246ITR125(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 and particularly in view of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the tax payable had been determined by the Income tax Officer himself on a Form called I. T. N. S. 150 simultaneously along with the determination of taxable income, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment order is invalid ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment order in this case was invalid and the tax on the income determined could not be recovered ?'2. The material facts of the case, giving rise to this reference, are as follows : the assessee, Alkee...

Shakeel Ahmad Mir Vs. State of J. and K. and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2000CriLJ4108

ORDERSyed Bashir-Ud-Din, J. 1. District Magistrate, Srinagar, respondent No. 2, passed detention order DMS/PSA/127, dated 30-11-1999 (Annexure-P3) under Section 3 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, whereunder one Shakeel Ahmad Mir on whose behalf this H.C. petition, writ petition has been filed, is detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State. This order is challenged in this petition on number of grounds.2. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents by District Magistrate, Srinagar, respondent No. 2.3. The counsel for petitioner submits that challenge to the impugned detention order is confined only to two grounds. First, the order is vitiated for non-application of mind and has been passed in a mechanical fashion. The Detaining Authority has not been made aware of the fact that the detenu who had been taken in custody on 20-7-1999 in connection with FIR 167/99 Under Sections 7/25, I...

Abdul Aziz Lone Vs. State of J. and K. and anr.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2000CriLJ3742

ORDERSyed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. Detenu Abdul Aziz Lone has been detained by District Magistrate Kupwara, vide Order No. DMK/Conf/575-77 dated 21-7-1999, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The detenu has been taken in preventive custody on 22-7-1999. This order of detention is under challenge in this petition.The petitioner's counsel submits that the detenu has not been supplied the material and documents referred in and relied on in the grounds of detention. He has been supplied just two leaves forming the grounds without any supporting material. In absence of the aforesaid material and documents, the source and basis of core and basic facts of the grounds and detention have not been communicated to detenu and thereby he has been disabled to make a representation against the detention to the Government. Next the counsel submits that by supplying the grounds of detention in English which language detenu could not understand he has been prejudiced to make any...