Orissa Court December 1987 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.
Sambalpur Rolling and Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, War ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-08-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR588(Orissa)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. A common question of law having been raised in these four writ petitions, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner has approached this court against the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ') by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-A, Sambalpur, and the four different writ petitions relate to four different notices for different assessment years, O.J.C. No. 1621 of 1979 being in respect of the assessment year 1972-73, O.J.C. No. 1622 of1979 being in respect of the assessment year 1973-74, O.J.C. No. 1623 of 1979 being in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 and O.J.C. No. 1624 of 1979 being in respect of the assessment year 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer has issued the notices under Section 148 of the Act, he having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment years in question.2. The petitioner's case brief...
Gavala Ankamma and ors. Vs. Gavala Mahalaxmi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori160
V. Gopalaswamy, J. 1. The facts giving rise to the present appeal against the confirming judgment of the Additional District Judge, Berhainpur, may be briefly stated as follows : The present respondent 1, the widow of late G, Jagayya, by herself as plaintiff 1, and on behalf of her minor daughter, plaintiff 2 (present respondent 2), filed the Title Suit No. 11 of 1972, a suit for partition, against her father-in-law, Jangalu (defendant 1) and Jangalu's minor son, defendant 2 (present appellant 2), alleging that they are the members of a Mitakshara Hindu Joint Family and the plaint A Schedule properties are the properties of the said joint family, and claiming that as the heirs of late Jagayya (son of Jangalu) they are entitled to a share in the suit properties. That after the death of the original defendant 1 Jangalu, his L.Rs. 1(a) to 1(f), were substituted in his place, and 1(a) and 1(c), his widow and daughter, are the present appellants 1 and 3 respectively. The case of plaintiff 1...
Bharat Kumar Sekhar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ659Ori
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged apart of the award (Annexure-1) of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa, by which, although he declared that termination of the services of the petitioner was illegal nevertheless he did not direct his reinstatement according to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act ('Act' for short).2. Facts are brief and are stated below. The petitioner was appointed as a workman under opposite party No. 3 on 1-5-1951 on a monthly pay of Rs. 40/-. He continued to serve under it in different capacities with enhanced pay. At the time of termination of his services with effect from 1-3-1976 as a measure of punishment but without drawing up a proceeding, he was holding the post of supervisor on a monthly pay of Rs. 165/-. He challenged the order of termination and the following dispute was referred to the Labour Court:'Whether the termination of services of Shri Bharat Kumar Sekhar, Supervision by the management of M/s. Ramai Talkies, Bolangi...
Collector, Cuttack Vs. Smt. Jayasri Debi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori163
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). 2. By a declaration of the year 1962, some lands of the respondent were acquired for the purpose of construction of a Link Road in Cuttack town. The dispute in the present case relates to 103 decimals of land with a house, compound wail and portion of a tank. Not being satisfied with the compensation, respondent claimed for reference for determination of the market value. On reference, the trial court has determined the rate of land per acre to be Rs. 50,000/-. So far as the house is concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge has awarded Rs. 3,000/- and for the compound wall he has awarded Rs. 6,000/-. 3. Learned Advocate General submitted that the valuation of the land, house and the compound wall as in this case is not based on materials and ought not to have been granted According to the learned Advocate General, a small area of 103 decimals would carry no value of a homes...
income-tax Officer, Ward-e Vs. Manmohanlal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Ori)109; [1988]173ITR10(Orissa)
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this revision, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge, First Court, Cuttack, rejecting a petition under Section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' for short).2. The undisputed facts are that opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 were partners of the firm opposite party No. 3. They were liable to pay income-tax along with penalty and interest as follows:Rs. OppositeParty No. 1:1,98,388OppositeParty No. 2:1,75,463OppositeParty No. 3:3,14,393 6,88,244 3. A sum of Rs. 3,08,533.10 was deposited to the credit of the opposite parties in the court of the learned sub-judge in Execution Case No. 181 of 1985 as compensation on account of acquisition of land. The Income-tax Officer filed an application on November 20, 1985, under Section 226(4) of the Act praying that out of the amount deposited to the credit of the opposite parties, a sum of Rs. 2,99,413.50 representing part of the arrears of tax should be paid to him. The opposite parties ra...
State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Orissa Cement Limited
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC334(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff, a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') filed the suit for Rs. 20,806.32 and interest for Rs. 3,745.13 as interest for three years with pendente lite and future interest. Its case is that it paid tax under the Act for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 on which it is entitled to rebate under Section 13(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Orissa Act') which has not been allowed to it by the defendants. Defendants filed three separate written statements in which, while not disputing the facts, they urged, amongst others, that the suit is barred under Section 22 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and is barred by limitation. Trial court having decreed the suit rejecting the plea of the defendants, this appeal has been filed.2. Learned Advocate-General reiterated the legal contentions and urged that in view of the specific bar under Section 22 of the Orissa ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›