Orissa Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR844(Orissa)
ORDER--Whether assessee could follow two different systems of accounting, i.e., mercantile and cash for a particular source of income--Tribunal giving no definite finding but merely followed its earlier view--Question does not arise out of the order ofApplication :Also to current assessment years.Citation :Income Tax Act 1961 s.256(2) ...
State of Orissa Vs. Jyoti Trading Company
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1992
Reported in: [1993]88STC530(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue by an application under Section 24(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'), this Court directed the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') to state a case and refer the following question for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal is justified to hold that, jam, jelly, tomato sauce and squash are covered by item (4) of Rule 93-K for levy of tax at the first point of sale ?'Pursuant to the direction, the Tribunal has stated a case.2. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of Jyoti Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the denier'), the opposite party.3. The only question which falls for consideration is whether jam, jelly, tomato sauce and squash are covered by item (4) of Rule 93-K of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short, 'the Rules'). The said rule enumerates items of goods which are taxable at the first, point in a series of...
Nirmal Chandra Choudhury Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR692(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. On being moved by Mr. Nirmal Chandra Choudhury (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee ') by an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short,' the Act'), this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short, ' the Tribunal '), to state a case and refer the following question for opinion :' Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was wrong to hold that the provisions of Section 3(1)(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied to the facts of this case ?'2. Pursuant to the direction, the Tribunal has stated a case. The background facts are as follows :The assessee who was earlier carrying on business in his individual capacity entered into a partnership arrangement and a partnership firm styled as M/s. Premier Industries came into existence. The accounting year as followed by the firm ends on September 30 of every year. The assessee has filed a return wherein he indicated his previous year to be March 31, 1980, so far ...
Mohammad Jakaullah Vs. Noor Mohammad Khan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4022; 1992(II)OLR377
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application filed Under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the informant has assailed the revisional order dated 16-1-1992 of the Add. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 1991 quashing the cognizance taken by the Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, bhadrak Under Sections 506/34, IPC in G R. Case No. 1060 of 1990.2. The factual backdrop of the case that emerges on perusal of the application and the lower Court records, may be shortly stated thus :On the report of the petitioner, the station diary entry bearingo No. 79 of 1990 was made with regard to the occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 3-6-1990. Since the police did not take any action in the matter, the petitioner made a complaint before the learned S. D. J. M., Bhadrak who sent it to the police for investigation Under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. On investigation the police submitted final form Under Section 73 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate registered G. R. Case No. ...
Smt. Girija Mishra Vs. the Berhampur Municipality
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori152; 74(1992)CLT872
Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner was asked by Annexure-1 to vacate the encroached portion of the premises within 24 hours from the receipt of the notice which is dated 21 -5-88. He there upon approached this Court by filing this petition on 28-5-88, as according to him, the authorities wanted to proceed with the demolition.2. Validity of Annexure 1 is assailed on the ground that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he should not vacate the premises in question. Annexure 1 is, therefore, violative of natural justice.3. Shri Murty appearing, for the Municipality brings to our notice Section 264(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, under which the impugned notice was issued. That section states that the Executive Officer may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove encroachment. This section does not require giving of any prior notice of show cause. Even so, as presently advised, we are of the view that reasonable opportu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Onkarmal Nanakram (No. 2)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR197(Orissa)
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Roy, learned standing counsel for the Department, and Mr. Arjun Agarwalla, learned counsel for the assessee.2. On being moved by the Revenue, this court had directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal'), to state a case and refer the following question for opinion :'Whether the Tribunal erred in law in its direction that interest paid to the partner in his individual capacity was allowable in his individual capacity when the partner represented the Hindu undivided family in the firm ?'3. Pursuant to the direction, the Tribunal has stated a case. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The only question which received the attention of the Tribunal in the second appeal was whether the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are attracted when a Hindu undivided family is a partner in a firm and the karta inhis individual status has been paid interest on amounts advanced to the firm. This questio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. Bazaz and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR131(Orissa)
Pasayat, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short, the 'Tribunal'), has stated a case and referred the following question for the opinion of this court 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 was justified in holding that the assessee was deriving income from business and that, therefore, the assessee was a firm entitled to registration ?'2. From the statement of case drawn up by the Tribunal, we find the fact situation to be as follows :M/s M.P. Bazaz and others (hereinafter described as the 'assessee') filed two returns for the assessment year 1978-79 corresponding to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1978. The first return related to the period April 1, 1977, to November 7, 1977, and the second return related to the period November 8, 1977, to March 31, 1978. The status declared in the returns filed by the assessee was that of a p...
Sukanti Suna Vs. Sashibhusan Mahakur and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT418; 1993CriLJ222
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1.The question that arises for determination in this case relates to interpretation of Section 202, Sub-section (2) proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shortly stated, the questions whether in a case where the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session the cognizance order is vitiated ipso facto if all the witnesses named in the complaint petition are not examined by the complainant. The question has engaged the attention of this Court and of other High Courts from time to time. The contention is raised quite often in revision petitions or petitions filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by accused persons. Hence the importance of the matter. 2. The factual backdrop of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated thus:On the complaint petition filed by the petitioner against the opposite party No. 1 and some other persons, I.C.C. No. 75 of 1990 was registered in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh. The...
BipIn Bihari Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT830; 1993CriLJ245
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The petitioner Bipin Bihari Das has filed this application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the State of Orissa, the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koraput and the Officer-in-charge, Town Police Station, Koraput with the prayer to quash the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 590 of 1989 pending before the S.D. J.M., Koraput. The sole ground on which quashing of the proceeding is sought is delay on the part of the police in completing the investigation. 2. The relevant facts stated in the application may be stated thus: The petitioner is an advocate practising at Koraput. He is the Secretary of a voluntary registered organisation known as 'Naya Sahayak Samiti' through which legal aid and advice has been rendered to litigants belonging to weaker section of society; certain developmental activities have been undertaken to improve the lot of people belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities, a tribal model school is managed by th...
Baishnab Charan Jena Vs. Ritarani Jena
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ238
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this revision petition the petitioner assails the revisional order dated 29-7-91 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1989 requiring him to pay to the opposite party maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 30-3-88 the date of presentation of the petition under Section 125, Cr. P.C. By the said order the Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 19th July, 1989 of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 41 of 1988 rejecting the application for maintenance. 2. The relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated thus: The petitioner Baishnab Charan Jena married the opposite party Ritarani Jena in 1980 according to Hindu rites and customs. They lived as husband and wife till they parted company sometime in 1985. The opposite party filed the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month in March, 1988. Therein she al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »