Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1979]117ITR388(Orissa)
Panda, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'Tribunal' respectively) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa, Bhubaneshwar, for answer by this court to the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 53,650 sustained by the assessee on the sale of Government loan is a capital loss or revenue loss ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Patnaik and Co. Pvt. Ltd., deals in automobiles. It holds an authorised agency for Fiat cars, jeeps, trucks, etc. It also sells spare motor parts. For the assessment year 1963-64, corresponding to the financial year ending March 31, 1963, the assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 53,650 sustained by it in the disposal of the Orissa Government Floated Loan 1962, purchased by it in the following background as narrated in the statement of facts submitted to this court, certain aspects of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1974Ori220; 40(1974)CLT672
Patra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother R.N. Misra, J. in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1967 which was against an affirming judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur in a suit for recovery of possession. The disputed property is 20 links north to south and about 150 links from east to west with a total area of about 3 cents and appertains the survey No. 495/2 of mouza Haladiapadar. Survey No. 495/2 is admittedly a Government Paramboke land being the part of a public path. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has any title thereto, the true owner being the State of Orissa which is not a party to the litigation.2. The plaintiff brought the suit on the basis that he was in possession of the disputed 3 cents of land since 1961 and had been subjected to assessment by virtue of an encroachment proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1953 (Act XV of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His name had been entered in the revenue ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1976]105ITR283(Orissa)
Patra, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ quashing the order dated November 19, 1971, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1718 of 1966-67. That appeal was filed before the Tribunal against an order passed by the Income-tax Commissioner dated January 27, 1966. In the memorandum of appeal the petitioner furnished his address as follows: ' Messrs. Konchada Ramamurty Subudhi and Sons, P.O. Berhampur, District Ganjam (Khaspa Street)'. 2. The appeal was posted for hearing before the Tribunal to September 12, 1969, and notice of the hearing of the appeal was issued to the petitioner in the following address: 'Konchada Ramamurty Subudhi & Sons, P.O. Berhampur, District Ganjam. '3. The words ' Khaspa Street' appearing after the name of the district were not added to that address. Despite this, the notice appears to have been received by the petitioner because on his behalf appearance was enteredinto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1974Ori190; 40(1974)CLT379
G. K. Misra, C. J.1. On 19th November, 1959, the 1st defendant sold the disputed property by a registered sale deed, Ext. I, to the 6th and 7th defendants. The disputed land constitutes 0.32 acre. In a partition between defendants 6 and 7, who are brothers, the suit-land fell to the share of defendant 6. By a registered sale-deed Ext. 2, defendant 6 sold 0.06 acre to the plaintiffs on 9-5-60 This six decimals were sold out of two plots, 2075 and 2076, three decimals from each of the plots from their southern side. On the same day, defendant 6 transferred the balance 6.26 acre to defendants 9 to 13 and plaintiff 9 without any specification of the boundary. On July 26, 1960, T. S. No. 149/60 was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title, and confirmation of possession of 0.06 acre and for injunction. In that suit plot No. 2075 was wrongly described. On 16th December, 1961, plaintiffs obtained a fresh registered sale deed, Ext. 5 from defendant 6 whereby the mistake in the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori8
Patra, J. 1. The petitioner who is a resident of Cuttack and is a tax-payer of various taxes levied by the State Government has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Orissa to forbear from spending any amount from the public funds of the State for renovation of the tanks of Markanda, Narendra and Sweta-ganga at Puri. It is stated in the petition that these tanks are held in high reverence by the Hindu public who use then, for religious purposes and periodical religious rites of Lord Jagannath of Puri are performed there. Spending of money from out of the funds of the State for renovation of these tanks amounts to maintenance of the Hindu religion which is forbidden by Article 27 of the Constitution and it is consequently alleged that the State Government cannot incur the expenditure. 2. The State in its counter-affidavit contends that the tanks in question are used by the general public for bathing an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1974Ori192
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties: NILAI SAHU | __________________|_______________________ | | Keshab Bhikari | | ___________|____________ Jogi | | | Nanda Binod Hari | | | ______|__________ Kalandi __________|____________ | | | | | | Bikal Baidhar ____|___________ Sahdu Jai Panchanan | | | | (D.1) (D.2) (D.3) widow widow Hrushi Sunaskar Lochan Jasoda D.5 D.6 | |Dhwajamani ______|_________ widow Tabha | | (D.4) Gananath Srinath (p.1) (p.2)2. Admittedly, in the disputed properties Keshab's branch has eight annas nine pies interest while Bhikari's branch has seven annas three pies interest. Dhwajamani died sometime in 1923. Defendant 4 Tabha, widow of Dhwaja-mani, transferred certain properties under a registered sale deed, Ext. A, on 18-7-62 to defendants 1 to 3. Plaintiffs are the sons of Baidhar. The suit is filed by them for declaration of their title to the disputed land, and for a further declaration that Ext. A is not binding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1975]35STC232(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in hides and skins registered both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) as also the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) and carries on business at Jharsuguda in the district of Sambalpur. He was assessed to Orissa sales tax for the year 1967-68 in March, 1971, and was required to pay a further amount of Rs. 3,013.14 over and above the admitted tax of Rs. 15,024.30. Hides and skins are exigible to purchase tax under the State Act. The petitioner claimed that the hides and skins which had been subjected to Orissa sales tax were sold outside the State of Orissa in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The State Government had issued a notification under Section 8 of the Central Act (annexure 1) to the effect that in respect of sale of declared goods no tax under the Central Act would be levied if the two conditions indicated therein (to which reference would be made later...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori78
Patra, J. 1. The petitioners are Advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and are members of the Athgarh Bar Association. Opposite party No. 2 Shri Achyutananda Das was enrolled as an Advocate by the Orissa State Bar Council (Opp. party No. 1) in 1969. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus or certiorari quashing the enrolment of opposite party No. 2 on the ground that he did not possess the necessary qualification for enrolment. 2. Opposite party No. 2 is not a graduate in law. It is also not disputed that he had not passed the Muktarship examination. But admittedly he was practising as a Mukhtar in the ex-State of Athgarh since the year 1945 and his name had been borne in the list of Mukhtars practising in that ex-State area till Athgarh was merged in the State of Orissa in 1948. Under the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950, certain enactments mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1974Ori194; 40(1974)CLT254
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 is a deity and plaintiff No. 2 is the Marfatdar. Their case is that plaintiff No. 1 was in khas possession of the disputed property as an intermediary on the date of vesting. On an application made under Section 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 the lands were settled on plaintiff No. 1 as he was the intermediary in khas possession. It was admitted in the plaint itself that the defendants 1 to 4 were recorded as occupancy rayats in respect of the suit lands in the last current settlement of the year, 1931. Their case, however, was that in fact defendants 1 to 4 were not occupancy tenants, they were influential men of the locality and to exercise control over plaintiff No. 2 defendants 1 to 4 were nominally recorded as occupancy rayats. As defendants 1 to 4 were recorded as rayats they transferred the disputed property in favour of defendants 5 and 6 by a registered sale deed (Ext B) on 7-1-1957 without any consideration. The suit is filed f...
Tag this Judgment!