Orissa Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panda and Co.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1977
Reported in: [1979]118ITR915(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. Being moved by the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, has stated this case and referred the following question for opinion of the court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer should consider that the filing of a declaration in Form No. 12 was an application for registration which was not in order within the meaning of Section 185(2) read with Section 184(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Assesses is a partnership firm. The year of assessment is 1968-69, previous year having ended on March 31, 1968. The firm was constituted under an instrument, dated 29th of March, 1967, and had 10 partners. For the assessment year 1967-68 registration had been extended to the firm. On January 23, 1968, one of the partners died and upon his death his widow was admitted as a partner and a fresh partnership deed was made on 30th of March, 1968. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee filed a declaration in Form ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.C. Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: [1978]124ITR514(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J. 1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') made by the revenue, this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, to state a case and refer the following question for the opinion of the court:' Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the imposition of penalty '2. The assessment years in question are 1960-61 and 1965-66. The assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from business in grocery. For the assessment year 1960-61, the assessment was completed by adopting an income of Rs. 48,255. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and the ITO made the reassessment treating the income to be Rs. 68,255 and the enhancement of Rs. 20,000 was on the basis of income from undisclosed sources. A cash credit of that amount appearing in the assessee's books in the name of one, M/s. Harnarayan Prabhudayal of Calcutta, was not accept...
Trailokyanath Mohanty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR254(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. These are three references made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,Cuttack Bench, and the following common question has been referred to us for our opinion :' Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount said to have been due to the assessee by way of remuneration qua managing director of M/s. Orient Engineering Works Private Ltd., Cuttack, in each of the three years in question was income of the assessee '2. The relevant years of assessment are 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, the respective previous years having ended with 31st of March of the corresponding years. Assessee was the managing director of M/s. Orient Engineering Works Private Ltd. and was assessed to income-tax in the status of an individual. In his return the assessee had not included any salary income qua managing director. The Income-tax Officer found that provision had been made by the company for such remuneration being Rs. 15,000 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa Vs. K. C. Behera and Others.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: [1980]124ITR514(Orissa)
R. N. MISRA J. - On an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') made by the revenue, this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, to state a case and refer the following question for the opinion of the court :'Whether, In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the imposition of penalty ?'The assessment years in question are 1961-61 and 1965-66. The assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from business in grocery. For the assessment year 1960-61, the assessment was completed by adopting an income of Rs. 48,255. The assessment was reopened under s. 147 of the Act and ITO made the reassessment treating the income to be Rs. 68,255 and the enhancement of Rs. 20,000 was on the basis of income from undisclosed sources. A cash credit of that amount appearing in the assessees books in the name of one, M/s. Harnarayan Prabhudayal of Calcutta, was not accepted to be a cash cre...
Devamani Atha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, OrissA.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR837(Orissa)
R. N. MISRA J. - The Income-tax Appellate Bench at Calcutta has stated this case and referred the following question for the opinion of the court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,01,000 as concealed income of the assessee ?'The year of assessment is 1960-61. Assessees father-in-law, Sivji Nathubhai, was engaged in business in manganese and iron ores. He having died in 1964 and the assessment for the year in question having remained incomplete until his death, the assessment has been completed in the hands of the present assessee as legal heir.The Income-tax Officer found that in the books of account there were different amounts stated to be loans taken against hundis. Called upon to explain, the assessee produced letters of confirmation from seven of the creditors. The Income-tax Officer wanted production of the discharged hundis and confirmation letters from the remaining creditors. The assessee...
State of Orissa Vs. Dunda Oram and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori74
Das, J.1. In close proximity to the Rourkela Steel Plant and the Fertiliser Factory where an industrial complex is growing up, A.34.38 dec. of land were acquired by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 dated 13-5-1969. There is no dispute that the acquisition is also for industrial and building purposes. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rupees 69,306.46. The respondents asked for re-ferences under Section 18 of the Act and in the three references the learned Subordinate Judge of Sundargarh enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 9,75,240 inclusive of 15% of statutory compensation and 25% for potential value of the land upon determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 200 per decimal. As against this decision, the State of Orissa preferred three appeals to this Court which were analogously heard by our learned brother S. K. Ray, J. and were dismissed. These three Letters Patent Appeals against the common decision of the learned sing...
D. Jairaj Vs. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori78; 44(1977)CLT368
Shankar, C.J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner-tenant has assailed the order of eviction passed against him in favour of O. P. No. 1, Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company).2. The petitioner was an employee of the Company. He was in occupation of quarter No. 34 in a block consisting of 40 quarters at a monthly rental of Rs. 10. On 17-9-72 the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Company and he was asked to vacate the quarter. On his failure to do so, an application for his eviction under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Rent Act) was filed before the House Rent Controller at Rayagada. The grounds of eviction taken were that the petitioner was a wilful defaulter in payment of rent and that the quarter was required by the Company for its own use. The petitioner denied the subsistence of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the Company, and also controverted t...
Sevak Nayak and ors. Vs. Ramkurshna Mollana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori82; 44(1977)CLT576
Panda, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of their suit for recovery of 22.80 acres of land in dispute with mesne profits from defendants 1 to 8. The scope of the appeal has been very much narrowed down due to the developments after filing of the suit and therefore only the facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated hereinbelow. The genealogy of the plaintiffs' family and of the defendants' family which is not disputed is as follows:-- SEVAK NAYAK (Plff. No.1) | ________________________________|________________________________________ | | | | | Prahiad (D.9) Dhruba (D.10) Akura (D.11) Udhaba (D.12) Pratap (plff. 2) ________|_________ | | | Chandramaleswar Srikanta Srimanta @ Budha (minor) (minor) (minor) LABANI __________________|_________________ | | Chaitan Goverdhan __________|___________ | | | | Dilli Madhusudan Dilli Lokanath ___________|_________ (D.5) (adopted) D.6 | | | (away) Ramkrishna Nilamadhab Ramanuja D.3 D.1 D.2Originally, there were two p...
Jagannath Nayak Vs. Laxminarayan Thakur and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori1; 44(1977)CLT519
ORDERS.K. Ray, J.1. This petition is by defendant No. 4 in Title Suit No. 157 of l974 filed in the court of Munsif. Jaipur. The plaintiffs -- opposite parties 1 to 3 -- filed the suit for setting aside a decree passed in an earlier suit, i. e., T.S. No. 128 of 1971 on the ground that the said decree was obtained fraudulently, and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was set down for hearing on 18-3-77 on which date the Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 4 filed haziras. The haziras filed by the petitioner (defendant No. 4) named eleven witnesses, of whom No. 1 was the petitioner himself. An endorsement had been made on that hazira that the petitioner (No. 1 witness) was present and that witnesses 2 to 11 would be present hereafter. This indicated that the petitioner himself was present to depose. At the instance of the plaintiffs the question of right to begin was mooted and decided against them and the plaintiffs were asked to adduce evidence first. P. W. 1 was exa...
K.C. Mohta and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC17(Orissa)
S.K. Ray J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in electrical goods and he was registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. He was assessed for the year 1971-72 under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by order dated 10th March, 1973 (annexure 1). The returned gross turnover was accepted, deduction claimed under Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) to the extent of Rs. 1,95,496.17 was allowed except for a sum of Rs. 564.67 and this resulted in extra demand of tax of Rs. 41.69.The petitioner purchased some goods from M/s. General Electrical Com-pany of India by furnishing declaration under Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act and transferred a portion of it to his Calcutta head office valued at Rs. 1,30,095.49, contravening the proviso to Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer, opposite party No. 2, while assessing under Section 12(4) of the Act excluded this amount from the returned gross turnover presumably being ignorant of such contravention of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›