Patna Court September 1994 Judgments

Mukesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Patna

NAGENDRA RAI, J. :As a common question of law is involved in both the cases, though they have been heard on two different dates, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In both the cases, the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bihar, Muzaffarpur, on 6th March, 1992, and 28th February, 1992, respectively.The only question that has to be determined in this case is as to whether the prosecution for the aforesaid offences should be quashed or at least be stayed during the pendency of the application filed for settlement of cases before the Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of s. 245B falling under Chapter XIX-A of the Act.2. The matrix of facts has to be stated first for appreciating the point involved in both the cases.Petitioner No. 1, Shri Mukesh Kumar, petitioner No. 2 Smt. Neelam ...

Mukesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, J.1. As a common question of law is involved in both the cases, though they have been heard on two different dates, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In both the cases, the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bihar, Muzaffarpur, on March 6, 1992, and February 28, 1992, respectively.2. The only question that has to be determined in this case is as to whether the prosecution for the aforesaid offences should be quashed or at least be stayed during the pendency of the application filed for settlement of cases before the Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of Section 245B falling under Chapter XIX-A of the Act.3. The matrix of facts has to be stated first for appreciating the point involved in both the cases.4. Petitioner No. 1, Shri Mukesh Kumar, petition...

industrial Packers and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (1995)52ITD1(Pat.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The main dispute relates to the order of the CIT(A) confirming disallowance of unpaid sales tax of Rs. 54,319 under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The facts, in brief, are that Bihar sales-tax amounting to Rs. 47,159 and Central sales-tax amounting to Rs. 7,260 remained unpaid on the last date of the previous year, i.e., 31-12-1985. Total amounts to Rs. 54,319. The due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was 30-6-1986 and it is an admitted position that the above outstanding amounts were paid after 30-6-1986.The assessee is, therefore, not saved by the first proviso below Section 43B of the Act, even if the first proviso is treated as clarificatory and operative from 1-4-1984, as held by the Patna High Court in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. Union of India [1991] 189 ITR 70. The amount was accordingly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the disallowance was...

Nishant Housing Development (P.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (1995)52ITD103(Pat.)

1. These are three appeals filed by department for assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89 and three cross-appeals filed by the department.They are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The dispute in these appeals relates to additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investments in construction of two multi-storeyed buildings called Surya Apartment and Vaibhav Apartment. The construction was carried out between assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89. A detailed and consolidated finding for the entire period has been given in the assessment order for assessment year 1986-87 and has been followed in two subsequent years.3. The assessee is a private limited company and according to the assessment order it had business of construction and sale of multi-storeyed buildings. Profit and loss account and balance sheet have been prepared for all years from regular books of account which have been audited also. Th...

Mohammad NizamuddIn Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Nagendra Rai, J.1. The sole appellant was put on trial before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah in Session trial No. 120 of 1992 for the offence under Sections 304B, 316 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, who has convicted him under Section 304B of the Indian Panel Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, under Section 498A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, he has directed that all the sentences awarded against the petitioner shall run concurrently.2. Samsad Begum alias Munni, the deceased, born from the wedlock of Abdul Salam (P.W. 1) and Tahira B...

Gulo Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

1. This writ application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing a communication dated 21.11.1992 (Annexure-5), whereby, the District Fishery Officer-Cum-Chief. Executive Officer, Madhubani, was asked to cancel long term settlement with respect to fisheries and take steps for settlement for a short term. The further prayer is to quash an order dated 18.3.1993 (Annexure-6), whereby, respondent No.5 has cancelled the long term settlement of the petitioners with respect to the Jalkars in question, We have heard the parties, therefore, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. Relevant facts for disposal of this writ application are as follows: The petitioners were granted registered lease of Dai Pokhar and Karpur Pokhar for a period of. ten years from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.2002. The District Fishery Officer, therefore, on 23.5.1992 submitted a proposal for approval of the settlement.3. Therefore, in terms of the Government's circular da...

Bihar Circle, Patna Vs. Sridhar Jha

Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna

B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 21.6.93 passed by the District Forum, Sahebganj in Case No. 6 of 93 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case need not be mentioned for disposal of this appeal because the order under appeal cannot be sustained for noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act). Section 14(2) of the Act requires that every proceeding in a case has to be conducted by the President and at least one member sitting together and order passed in such proceeding has to be signed by the President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding. From the perusal of the order-sheet of the case before the District Forum, it appears that on the dates fixed in the case, the proceeding was conducted by the President alone the order passed on those dates bear the sign...

Bata India Limited Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Aftab Alam, J.1. The petitioner in this application under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution seeks to challenge certain directions given it to by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Patna vide his letter No. 3790 dated October 30, 1991; a photo copy of this letter has been enclosed as Annexure-I.2. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of footwear and one of its factories/manufacturing units is situated at Bataganj, Digha in the city of Patna (hereinafter lo be referred as 'the Digha Factory')- For the benefit of its workers, the petitioner is obliged, under the provisions of the Factories Act, to maintain a canteen at the Digha factory. It has naturally employed workers to work in the canteen. The petitioner pays wages to its workers (other than those working in the canteen) in terms of periodically revised wage agreements arrived at between the management -' and the Union of Workers, respondent No. 3. To the canteen workers, however, it pays (muc...

Gulam Subhani Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

P.K. Deb, J.1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ against the respondents in not interfering by way of revision etc., against the directives given by this Court in a previous Cr WJC No. 66 of 1991 (R) disposed of on 26-5-1992 with the direction as contained in the said order, which has been contained in Annexure-I of the writ application.2. For appreciating the submissions of both the parties, facts are necessary to be reiterated, which run as follows:The valuable property situated in Plot No. 7048 near Jhanda Chowk at Hazaribagh was originally owned admittedly by one Saraswati Devi and she entered into an agreement of sale of such property to one Shahjada Tanbir. But, when she failed to execute the sale-deed in favour of Shahjada Tanbir in terms of the agreement arrived at, a suit for specific performance was filed by the said Shahjada Tanbir in T.S. No. 128 of 1988 before the court of Munsif at ...

Bihar State Dairy Corpn. Patna Vs. Abdul Wajid

Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna

B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 15th April, 93 passed by the District Forum, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 232 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the Respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The relevant facts of the case may be briefly stated. The complainant was asked by the opposite party by letter dated 10.8.93 to supply printed round tin containers for packing of Ghee and according to the terms of contract the full payment of the price of the materials supplied by the complainant to the opposite party was to be made within seven days of the receipt of the materials. Accordingly tin containers were supplied by the complainant to the opposite party. But the payment was not made by the opposite party in accordance with the terms of the contract. Out of the total price of those tins supplied by the complainant, Rs. 42,000/- was given to the opposite party on 31.5.90 and the remaining amount of...