Jharkhand Court September 2007 Judgments
Srikant Rai and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR185a(Jhr)]
ORDERD.K. Sinha, J.1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order impugned passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 260 of 2006 on 5.7.2006 whereby and whereunder the charge was directed to be framed against the petitioners under Sections 147, 341 and 303/149, IPC without considering the petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 228, Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The specific case of the petitioners was that under the facts and circumstances, no offence was made out against any of them under Section 307, IPC and therefore, the charge under Section 307 was not maintainable according to the charge-sheet filed after investigation by the police.3. I find from the order impugned that the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 228, Cr PC was not considered by the trial Court as there was even no reference of any petition to that effect and in this manner the Court below has committed irregularity. Whenever any...
Tag this Judgment!Pratik Sarkar, Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR660
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 12.6.2007, passed by Shri Vishal Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder, discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected with a direction to the petitioners to stand charge under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.2. Prosecution story, in short, was that the police party, on tip off, headed by a police officer of the rank of D.S.P. intercepted a Mahindra Jeep bearing No. JH 10B 7373 on 05.12.2003 and apprehended the petitioners (1) Pratik Sarkar (2) M.B. Suresh and (3) Jitendra Laxman Thorve. When called upon, all the three petitioners narrated that construction work of G.T. Road was undertaken by their Company H.C.C. and a few days ago, some employees of Hindustan Construction Company were abducted by the terrorist organization M.C.C.I. The abducted persons were rescued on the quick actio...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Bogilal Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1976; [2008(116)FLR395]; (2008)IILLJ63Jhar
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated April 27,1998 passed by SDJM Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. G. 59/1997, whereby he has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.Complainant's case in brief was that the accused-petitioner is Contractor engaged for design and construction work of 'Intek well-cum-pump House' for Tenughat Reservior under the integrated Water Supply Scheme. He had employed 20 contract labours. The allegation against the accused is that he did not submit half-yearly return in Form XXIV for the year ending December 31, 1997 to the Licensing Officer, Hazaribagh even after issuance of show-cause notice to him.2. On the basis of the said complaint submitted by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Hazaribagh, Complaint Case No. G 59/1997 was registered by the C.J.M., Hazaribagh under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regula...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karimia Trust
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Jharkhand)670; [2008]302ITR57(Jharkhand); [2008(1)JCR513(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. By this application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this Court for opinion:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the was justified in holding that the trust was charitable-cum-religious trust and it was not hit by Section 13(1)(bb) of the Act?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that even if there is some miscarriage on account of breach of trust by the trustees, the benefit of Section 11 cannot be denied if such miscarriage docs not effect the vires of the validity of the trust?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee fulfilled all the conditions laid down in Section 11 of the Act to claim the benefit of Section 11 of the Act?2. The facts of the case, which are relevant for answer the questions of law, are as under.3. The assessee is M/s. Karimia Trust, Jam...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eastern Tar (P) Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR679; (2008)218CTR(Jharkhand)506; [2008(3)JCR667(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By these reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, the following question has been referred to this Court for opinion:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income on FDR with Bank and on deposit with IDBI is part of the profit and gains derived from an industrial undertaking attracts Section 80I of the Income Tax Act?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on FDR with Bank and on deposit with IDBI is part of the profit and gains derived from an industrial undertaking to which Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies and thereby qualifying for deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :The Assessee is an industrial undertaking engaged in conversion of coal tar into hard pitch anthrance...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shrimati Bhagwani Devi, Proprietor, Woo ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Jharkhand)373; [2008]298ITR413(Jharkhand); [2008(1)JCR28(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 whereby the following questions of law have been referred to this Court-1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made under the head 'Income from House Property' arising out of determining the annual value in respect of portion of the house property rented out to M/s Wool House on the basis of rent received in respect of similar portion of the house property-rented out to a third party?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in directing that Annual value of the property in respect of portion rented to M/s Wool House should be determined obo actual rent received from M/s Wool House, when because of the close relationship between the assessee and M/s Wool House, the annual value should be determined on the consideration of rent receivable indicated by the rent receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mahabir Prasad JaIn Vs. C.i.T.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]300ITR389(Jharkhand); [2008(1)JCR511(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By the reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the following questions have been referred for answer by this Court:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,69,200/-?(2) Whether the finding of the Hon'ble Tribunal regarding opportunity of being heard production of Pawan Kr. Jain and refusal to admit additional/new evidence are correct?(3) Whether the findings as aforesaid are based on any material on record as according to the appellant the same are contrary to the record and thus are incorrect?2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The assessee was dealing in a wholesale business. He filed return of income tax showing total income of Rs. 21,150/-. In course of assessment proceeding he had purchased bank drafts to the tune of Rs. 12,35,030/- from S.B.I. Tenughat on different dates and Rs. 3,78,000/- from S.B.I. Gomia on different dates. The A...
Tag this Judgment!Omec Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Jharkhand)144; [2008(1)JCR221(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In the instant case, the Tribunal referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for opinion by this Court:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was reasonable cause for the assessee to receive the loans and deposits in cash and not by the account payee cheque or account payee bank draft as required u/s 269SS and, as such the penalty levied u/s 271D for receiving the loans and deposits in cash, was proper and justified?2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The assessee is a firm carrying on contract business. The assessee received Rs. 20000/- or more in cash from 11 persons in between 14.2.1993 and 10.11.199b amounting to Rs. 5 lacs. The return filed by the assessee was, however, accepted under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. After the assessment was made, a penalty proceeding under Section 271D of the said Act was initiated by the Assessing Authority for receiving and accepting those deposit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eastern Tar P. Ltd.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]301ITR427(Jharkhand)
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. By these references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to this Court for opinion:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income on FDR with bank and on deposit with IDBI is part of the profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking attracts Section 80I of the Income-tax Act?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on FDR with bank and on deposit with IDBI is part of the profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking to which Section 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies and thereby qualifying for deduction under Section 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.The assessee is an industrial undertaking engaged in conversion of coal tar into hard pi...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Kant Fariyat and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through the Secre ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR885]; [2008(1)JCR102(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. These writ petitions are being disposed off by this common order after hearing the parties at length finally.2. W.P. (S) No. 161 of 2005 was filed for directing the respondents to confirm the temporary appointment of the petitioners. I.A. No. 1871 of 2005 was filed for amendment of the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.6.2005.By this order, petitioners were removed from service on the ground that their show causes were considered by the District Education Establishment Committee but the same were not found satisfactory. It is further said that the teachers similarly situated with the petitioners, who were illegally appointed in 1981-83, were removed in 1984-85. Then in view of the judgments of Supreme Court (S.L.P. No. 10051/1990) and High Court (C.W.J.C. No. 7000/1992 and analogous cases), a final panel was prepared in 1994 after considering the objections invited. Petitioners' cases were rejected and they were not included in the panel and thus they wer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »