Orissa Court December 1991 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.
Rabindra Sethi and ors. Vs. Gyan Singh and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-03-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ1153
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are minor sons and daughters and appellant No. 5, the mother of one Rama Chandra Sethi, who lost his life in an accident on 24.12.1982. Before the Tribunal compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal, however, allowed Rs. 36,000/- only along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per armurn from the date of application in favour of the appellants. Such award is assailed by the appellants on the ground that the compensation and interest awarded are on the lower side.2. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and that the appellants are his legal representatives. Basing on the documentary evidence which revealed drawal of Rs. 483/-per month by the deceased, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 500/- and loss of dependency at Rs. 300/-. Adopting a multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/6...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Industries Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Ori)148; [1992]198ITR251(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short ' the Tribunal '), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ' the Act ') :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee-company should not be deducted from the value of the assets to arrive at the actual cost for the purpose of allowing depreciation and investment allowance? '2. The background facts are that Messrs. Orissa Industries Limited (in short ' the assessee ') is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of refractories, fire bricks, ceramics, etc., at Barang and Latikata. During the assessment year 1982-83, the petitioner claimed depreciation including extra shift allowance at Rs. 24,61,011. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had rece...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR564(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa, in this writ application, questions the legality of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), in purported exercise of the powers under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').2. The background facts are as under :Prajatantra Prachar Samity (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a public charitable trust registered as such by the Commissioner of Income tax, Orissa, under Section 12A of the Act. For the assessment year 1985-86, it filed a return disclosing loss of Rs. 15,76,880, before the Income-tax Officer, Ward A, Circle II, Cuttack. The loss was arrived at after making provision for liabilities incurred, taking into account amounts receivable but not received. The Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee was doing business ; Section 11(4) of the Act was applicable, and the method of accounting is such that the income cannot properl...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Ori)281; [1992]196ITR640(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The only point involved in this writ application is whether the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), was legally justified in recalling its order dated March 30, 1989, passed in I. T. A. No. 80/CTK of 1986, in purported exercise of its powers under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').2. The background facts relevant for disposal of the writ application are as follows :One, Messrs. Premier Industries (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Ward, Rourkela, for the assessment year 1980-81. Under the head 'Salary and wages', the assessee claimed payment of Rs. 2,26,039. Since the assessee did not respond to letters dated October 14, 1981, October 19, 1981, and October 27, 1981, requiring it to furnish certain details, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 78,500 out of the said claim. The primary ground for such disallowance was that no de...
Ganesh Dash Vs. Baikuntha Adabar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR367
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant No. 1 in a Money Suit No. 51 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsif, Bargarh is the appellant in this Court. There were altogether 11 defendants in the suit but the Courts below found no liability against 10 of them and relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit for malicious prosecution was only allowed against defendant No. 1. In the suit, the plaintiff had claimed general damages of Rs. 1,000/- and a special damage of another Rs. 1,000/- with interest against the defendants for malicious prosecution but a sum of Rs. 250/-was allowed by the Munsif as general damage and Rs. 750/-, as special damage as against defendant No. 1 which was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh in Money Appeal No. 5 of 1976.2. The allegation of the plaintiff in the suit is that there was dispute between the plaintiff and his relations in one hand and the defendants and some of the villagers on the other in respect of a house site. There were some ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›