Orissa Court January 1995 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. Govind Chandra Pani
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Ori)359
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. On an application being filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has formulated the following questions for the opinion of this court :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the incentive bonus received by the assessee can be assessed as income from profession and deduction at the rate of 40 per cent. be allowed on account of expenses ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee being an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and deriving both salary and incentive bonus could not be assessed under Section 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of his incentive bonus receipt ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right to endorse the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in holding that the term ...
iron Exchange India Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR402
A. Pasayat, J. 1. These writ applications Involve identical dispute, and therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment which 6hali govern each one of them. Petitioner has moved the Court for stay of realisation of demands raised under the Orissa Sales-tax Act, 1947 (in short, the 'Act') for the quarters ending 31-12-1984 and 31-3-1985 and assessment years 1986-86 and 1986-87. The Sales Tax Officer, Ward-A, Koraput-1 Circle, Jeypore being of the view that the petitioner was executing works contract, levied tax and total demand raised for the aforesaid various end years including those raised under the Orissa Additional Sales tax Rules, 1975 (in short, the 'Rules') come to Rs. 37.27,525/-, Since petitioner's challenge to the assessment did not yield any fruitful result before the appellate authorities, applications were field under Section 24(1) of the Act. Undisputedly references have been made to this Court and they are pending. During pandency of reference applications, petitione...
Utkal Woven Sacks Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR407
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner calls in question legality of assessments framed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhadrak for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947(in short, the 'Act'). Petitioner was held not to be entitled to incentives/benefits available to industrial units under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 (in short, IPR') of the Government of Orissa.2. Facts situation is almost undisputed. Petitioner, a partnership firm carries on business of manufacturing High Density Polythene (in short, 'HDP') at the factory situated at Bhadrak. The assessing officer was of the view that one of the ineligible industries is a tailoring unit (other than manufacturing units for readymade garments), and since process of cutting and stitching of sacks was involved, petitioner-unit was a tailoring unit. According to him, petitioner purchased HDP fabrics from other manufactures, cut and tailored them into sacks for sale.3. Petitioner's stand is that expression ...
Kasi Alias Kasinath Jena Vs. Pitabas Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR424
A. Pasayat, J.1. Revisional order under Section 53 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short, the 'Act') passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (L. R ), Puri dated 27-12-1989 in O.L R. Revision Mo. 64 of 1986 is subject matter of challenge. 2. Background facts giving rise to dispute are as follows : Kasi alias Kasinath Jena, petitioner No. 1 filed an application before the Revenue Officer, Pipil under Section 15 (1) (d) of the Act, claiming tenancy over A0.37 decimals of land in plot No. 575, khata No. 58 of mouza Dakhinasahi, Revenue Officer accepted claim of tenancy, and his conclusions were upheld in appeal by Officer on Special Duty (L.R.) Puri. It is relevant to mention hare that petitioner No. 1's stand was that Jaya Krishna Sahu, father of opp. parties 1 and 2 was landlord, so far he is concerned, and subsequently sale of the lands to Agadhu Jena and others (opp. parties 3 to 6) would not affect his bhag tenancy. Petitioners 2 and 3 are sons of Kasinath. In revision filed ...
Bhimsen Gochhayat Vs. Regional Manager, Bank of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR915]; (1998)IIILLJ630Ori
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner's grievance in this application is that notwithstanding the order of acquittal passed by a Criminal Court his employers initiated departmental proceeding, and have passed an order of dismissal. The said order is under challenge before the appellate authority.2. Background facts, as presented by petitioner, shorn of unnecessary details are as follows :Petitioner was appointed as a part-time sweeper of Bank of India, a Nationalised Bank, at Rasta Branch on June 22, 1978, and was promoted and appointed as Daftary of Balasore Branch, In view of pendency of a criminal case, C.R. Case No. 1049 of 1982 corresponding to trial case No. 309 of 1987 in the Centre of Judicial Magistrate, first class, Balasore, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') he was placed under suspension. He was convicted by the learned JMPC on August 26, 1987 for the offence punishable under Section 468, IPC...
BenzamIn Khiro Alias Kiro, Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1682; 1995(I)OLR503
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Since all these applications involve identical prayer, they are disposed of By this common' judgment which shall govern each one of them. The controversy in short is whether conviction can be suspended under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code'). The petitioners assert that it can be done, and in any event, according to them, same can be put in eclipse, white it is under challenge in a higher forum. According to the opposite parties, under Section 389 of the Code what is to be suspended is the sentence, or the order appealed against, and to release the appellant on bail, it he is in confinement, and nothing beyond it. The controversy centres round the scope and ambit of Section 389.2. Section 389 of the Code deals with 'suspension , of sentence pending the appeal; release of a appellant on bail', as the heading shows. Sub-section (1) deals with the powers of the appellate Court for reasons to, be recorded in writing, to suspend exe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›