Orissa Court August 1990 Judgments
Niranjan Pradhan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT419; 1991CriLJ224
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The accused persons in G.R. Case No. 4 of 1985 now pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Narsinghpur have filed this application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) assailing the order dated 31 -3-90 refusing to consent to the request of the Asst. Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution in the case.2. The aforementioned case was started on the report lodged by one Bidulata Das at the Narsinghpur Police Station on 7-1-85 alleging, inter alia, that at about 1-30 a.m. on the same day about twenty to thirty persons being armed with lathis and tangia (axe) etc. broke open the door of the shop of the informant; when her mother in law enquired of the persons why they were behaving in that manner, one Kirtan Sahu assaulted her by lathi and one Pankaj Behera threw a piece of cloth soaked with kerosene setting fire to the thatch of the house. It was further alleged by the informant that about 200 to 300 persons had assembled outsi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.R. and Co.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR367(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act').2. The assessee is an unregistered firm. It carries on business in kendu leaves. There was nationalisation of the kendu leaf trade. The assessee which had buildings for being used in its business, rented them out and got rent. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that this rent is the income out of the house property, since the assessee has closed the business. The Tribunal held that merely because there is nationalisation of the kendu leaf trade, it does not mean that the business of the assessee in kendu leaves has been closed. When the business is not closed and the houses were not being used for the purpose of business that year, they have been rented out. Therefore, it cannot be said to be income from house property or income ancillary to the same. On this finding, they have allowed the appeal of the assessee.3. App...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Mohanty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR509(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the following question of law : 'Whether or not, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 53,500 made under the head 'Income from undisclosed sources' on the ground that the money was not spent by the two sons in their individual capacity ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family having the father as karta. His two sons aged about 26 and 22 are the other members of the joint family. Two plots of land were purchased which stand in the names of the two sons jointly for a consideration of Rs. 53,500 during the assessment year. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the consideration amount comes from joint family funds and source of income of the said amount is undisclosed. This is accepted by both the appellate authorities.3. In the assessment proceedings one of the sons filed an a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chamanlal Narula
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR566(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These two references are under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The statements of fact were made on the following common question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the non-disclosure by the assessee relating to the nature of investments would bring him within the provisions of Section 147(a) ?' 2. The assessment in respect of the assessee was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1962-63 on March 28, 1967, and for the year 1963-64 on March 20, 1968. Coming to know that the assessee had not paid tax on some items of his income, notices were issued for those two years for reopening of assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act. It was found by the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that, in respect of the year 1962-63, the assessee invested Rs. 40,500 and in the year 1963-64 he invested Rs. 50,000 in the business of a partn...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Tyres Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR342(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Its main business is to manufacture tyres and sell them. It is not disputed that the company has not yet started its business. It is incurring expenses for the purpose of construction of a factory to start the business. The company is prohibited from investing funds except by depositing in scheduled banks. As per Article 24 of the memorandum of association, the company has made some fixed deposits from out of which it receives interest. For assessment for the four years in dispute, the Income-tax Officer accepted the claim of the company that interest received is not business income. The Commissioner, however, in exercise of his power of revision, set aside the order and directed the Income-tax Officer to assess the company by considering the interest received as income from other sources as provided under Section 56 of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by the revisional order, the assessee preferred a...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Weavers Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR646(Orissa)
S.G. Mohapata, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-Lax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee.2. This court directed the Tribunal to state a case on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right not to allow the entire sum of Rs. 42,942 as deduction on the ground that the assessee did not file any appeal or cross-objection in respect of the appeal registered as I. T. A. No. 67/CTK of 1977-78 filed before the Tribunal ?'3. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. In respect of the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 42,942 which was claimed to have been spent in the construction of a school building at Tora. This expenditure was asserted to be towards labour welfare expenses. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for exemption. In appeal by the assessee, ...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT811; (1992)ILLJ182Ori
ORDER1. Heard Mr. S.B. Nanda for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the opposite parties.2. The Orissa Industries Ltd., and its recognised Union, Lathikata Mazdoor Union, are petitioners before this Court. Their prayer is that they should be allowed exemption from the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (shortly 'the Act'). The exemption is claimed on the ground that the facilities provided by the employer are substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under the Act by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (shortly 'the Corporation'). The prayer has been ultimately rejected by the Govt. on the ground that the benefits provided by the management are inferior to those provided under the E.S.I. Scheme. This is the communication of the Deputy Secretary dated April 12, 1984 as at Annexure-21.3. It is submitted by Mr. Nanda that this decision has been arrived at by the Government without giving a proper hearin...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radhi Dei and ors. Vs. Lalit Bihari Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori36; 71(1991)CLT17
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The question that falls for determination in this case is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the executing Court can refuse to execute the decree holding that it is a nullity and it has become inexecutable.2. Being unsuccessful in their attempt to challenge the validity and executability of the decree under execution, the petitioners filed this application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code ('C.P.C.' for short) assailing the order dated 12-4-89 of the Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak in Misc. Case No. 45 of 1987 rejecting the application filed by them under Section 47, C.P.C.3. The relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus : Original Suit No. 63-1 of 1971 was filed by the opposite party, Lalit Bihari Mohanty, against Parbati Bewa, Aparti Jana, Kartika Jena and some other for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of Ac. 0.10 decimals of land out of plot No. 406 under C.S. Khata No. 12 of Mouza ...
Tag this Judgment!Nakul Behera and ors. Vs. Damodar Swain, Tahasildar, Banki
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori101
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in a suit filed by opposite party for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the disputed land, for delivery of possession in the event there is dispossession during the pendency of the suit, and for issue of permanent injunction with costs and con-sequential reliefs. Their prayer for amend-ment under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') having been refused, this petition has been filed.2. A short reference to the factual aspect is necessary for disposal of this revision application. Plaintiff claimed that he was in possession of the disputed land on the basis of a lease granted in his favour by the Tahasildar, Banki (defendamt No. 4 in the suit and pro forma opposite party in this revision application); the present petitioners have no right, title and interest over the disputed land and were trying to interfere with his possession, necessitating institution of the suit. The present peti...
Tag this Judgment!Pranakrushna SwaIn Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR143(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These references are at the instance of the assessee under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A common statement of the case has been made on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the non-issue of the show-cause notice by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner before directing enhancement was a procedural irregularity which was a curable defect or it was a legal infirmity making her order a nullity ?'2. Against orders under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeals. In those appeals, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the penalty. For that purpose, no notice was given to the assessee. Against the appellate orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal where he submitted that the entire proceeding for enhancement in appeal is vitiated since no power of enhancement could have been exercised since there was n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »