Orissa Court March 1977 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.
Bijayananda Patnaik Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-1977
Reported in: [1982]136ITR861(Orissa)
B.K. Ray, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, allowing a revision application filed by the opposite party challenging the order of Shri B. Sahu, Magistrate, 1st Class, Cuttack, in 2CC-203 of 1974, discharging the petitioner under Section 253(1), Cr. PC (old) without framing a charge against him under Section 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for want of sufficient materials. The learned Additional Sessions Judge having allowed the revision before him directed further enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has come up to this, court against the order of the court below.2. The facts giving rise to this revision may briefly be stated thus: One Shri S.C. De in the capacity of an ITO filed a complaint under Section 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961, against the petitioner. The case made out in the complaint was that the petitioner had filed a return for the assessment year 1964-65 corresponding to the accounting year ending on Ma...
Govinda Choudhury and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR497(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. On an application of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, has stated this case and has referred the following two questions for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,77,692 awarded to the assessee as interest was rightly held to be a revenue receipt ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, onthe facts and in the circumstances of the case, the aforesaid sum ofRs. 2,77,692 was rightly separated from the other amounts under theawards and taxed in full ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73, corresponding to the financial year ending with March 31, 1972. The assessee is a firm engaged, inter alia, in execution of Government contracts. It disclosed in its return for the year a gross receipt of Rs. 22,72,997 and following a settlement between it and the revenue...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›