Orissa Court December 1964 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.
Rao and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori150
Das, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, referring the following question of law to this Court: 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, registration of the firm should have been renewed for the assessment year 1959-60 under Section 26A of the Income Tax Act, 1922, read with Rules framed thereunder.'2. The assessee is a partnership concern constituted by a registered deed of partnership dated 28-3-1958. The principal object of the firm was to carry on money-lending business. The firm consisted of the following five members and according to the terms of the partnership, they had to share the profit and loss of the business in the manner, stated below: (1) M. Venkataswar Rao -- Four annas. (2) M. Kartic Chandra Rao -- Four annas. (3) M. Satyanarayan Rao- -- Four annas. (4) M. Subba Rao -- Two annas. (5) Sm. Sita Devi-- Two annas. The first three partners are the sons of M. SubbaRao and...
Rao and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori147
Das, J.1. This Is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, wherein the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court.'Whether In the facts and circumstances of the case, registration under Section 26A was rightly refused on the ground that the individual shares of the partners, M. Subba Rao and his wife, Sita Devi were not specified in the partnership deed.'2. The Firm Messrs. Rao and Sons, was constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 31-3-51. The names of the partners and their respective shares in in the firm were described as follows:(1) M. Venkateswar Rao ....Four annas(2) M. Kartik Chandra Rao ....Four annas(3) M. Satyanarayan Rao ....Four annas(4) M. Subba Rao and his wife, Sita Debi ....Four annasPartners 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of partners 4, M. Subba Rao and 5 his wife Sita Devi. At the time of the execution of the deed, Satyanarayan Rao was a minor. On 4-1-1952 he became major and signified his a...
Rao and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR685(Orissa)
The judgment of the court was delivered byDAS J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, referring the following question of law to the cour :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, registration of the firm should have been renewed for the assessment year 1959-60 under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with the Rules framed thereunde ?'The assessee is a partnership concern constituted by a registered deed of partnership dated March 28, 1958. The principal object of the firm was to carry on money-lending business. The firm consisted of the following five partners and, according to the terms of the partnership, they had to share the profit and loss of the business in the manner stated below :(1) M. Venkataswar Rao Four annas(2) M. Kartic Chandra RaoFour annas(3) M. Satyanarayan RaoFour annas(4) M. Subba RaoTwo annas(5) Sm. S. SitadeviTwo annasThe first three partners are the ...
Banshidhar Onkarmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR462(Orissa)
R. K. DAS J. - In all the four cases, this court, under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, required the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and to refer the following question for the opinion of the cour :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the provisions of section 10(2)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Tribunal had power to scale down the rate of interest due to Bai Mani Poddar from 9 per cent. to 6 per cen ?'The assessment years involved in these cases are 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, the corresponding previous years being Diwali years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.For all these four years the assessee was a Hindu undivided family with Onkarmal Poddar as the karta. The assessee carried on various business in cloth, yarn, etc. and derived income from other sources also. Mani Bai Poddar is the wife of Onkarmal Poddar. On the occasion of her marriage with Onkarmal, she received a sum of Rs. 20,000 from h...
Mahapatra Bhandar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori160; [1965]58ITR671(Orissa)
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring the following question for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Officer was justified in refusing registration of the alleged firm under Section 26-A or the Income Tax Act.' 2. One Udayanath Mohapatra held a license for excise shop in ganja and opium in his own name, for the previous year ending 31-3-62 for which the assessment year would be 1952-53. Finding difficulty in financing the said excise shop individually, he entered into partnership with five other persons and a deed of partnership was executed on 30-3-1950. In that deed the interest of each partner in the profits and losses was specified. The partnership firm was described as Mohapatra Bhandar and that firm applied for registration under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act for the year in question. The income-tax authoritie...
Ranjit Singh Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-01-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ336
G.K. Misra, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I. P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was called upon to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced to death.2. Prosecution case is that there was some ill feeling between the accused and the deceased who were residents of village Pachar. The deceased and Bibhisan Bhoi (P. W. 1) were brothers. About six months before the incident P. W. 1 found the accused in the house of her sister (P. W. 4) when she was alone and her husband was absent. This led to a quarrel. In the evening of that day the deceased also took exception to the conduct of the accused. In a punch the deceased and P. W. I executed Ext. 2 acknowledging their fault for having started the quarrel with the accused. The accused, however, did not agree to execute any document. Their ill feeing continued. Just before sun-set on 16-6-63 the deceased was returning from his field when the accused shot him with a gun, P. W. 2, a cowherd boy, saw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›