Orissa Court October 1992 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.
Urmila Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT581; 1993(I)OLR225
L. Rath, J.1. This revision assails the conviction of the petitioner Under Sections 47 (a) and (f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and the sentence to undergo S.I. for six months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S. I. for a further period of one month with direction that the sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. The petitioner stood the trial for recovery of one aluminium still having smell of Mohua-wash, one plastic jerrican containing five litres of I. D. liquor, one still-head and eight earthen pots each containing twenty litres of Mohua-wash from her house. The prosecution against her was based upon a raid conducted by PW 3, the S. I, of Excise, Bhanjanagar on 27-8-1985 on the house of the petitioner after observing all formalities and finding the aforesaid articles there. At the time of the search only the petitioner was in the house. Prosecution report was submitted by the S. I. of Excise both against the petitioner and her husban...
Orissa Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1992
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Ori)419; [1993]203ITR34(Orissa)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The order of the Income-tax Officer dated May 2, 1990, under Section 115A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), annexed as annexure-14 to the writ application, is under challenge in this writ application. The payment made by the Indian company to the foreign company in consideration of the assistance rendered by the seller or its Sub-contractors as provided under Article V.1(a) and 2 of the agreement at the rate of 350 U. S. dollars per man-day of time spent by the experts of the seller is the subject-matter of dispute. The Income-tax Officer has held the remittance to be 'fees for technical services' and has required the petitioner to deduct tax at the prescribed percentage before remittance. The petitioner's contention, however, is that the remittance thus made would be chargeable under the head 'Salaries' or, alternatively, it would come within the exclusion part of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and, therefore, no tax is liable to be p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›