Patna Court June 1996 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandmal Mohal Lal
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, referred to this court, the following two questions for the assessment year 1976-77 for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer's order passed under Section 184(7) was an appealable order ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration even though no fresh deed of partnership was executed on the attainment of majority by two minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership ?' 2. Mr. Sharan, learned counsel for the Revenue does not press the first question and we, therefore, need not answer the same. 3. As regards the second question, we may briefly note the facts. 4. The assessee-firm had been granted registration prior to the assessment year in question. For the assessment year...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chandmal Mohanlal.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
BY THE COURT :At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, referred to this Court, the following two questions for the asst. yr. 1976-77 for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the ITOs order passed under s. 184(7) was an appealable order ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration even though no fresh deed of partnership was executed on the attainment of majority by two minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership ?'2. Mr. Sharan, learned counsel for the Revenue does not press the first question and we, therefore, need not answer the same.3. As regards the second question, we may briefly note the facts.The assessee-firm had been granted registration prior to the assessment year in question. For the asst. yr. 1976-77, the assessee sought continuation of registr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Biswajit Samonta
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, under the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, referred to this court the following two questions for its opinion (assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83) '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provision for tax liability was deductible for arriving at the break-up value of unquoted shares held by the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CDS deposit could not form part of the taxable asset ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and owns certain shares in a company. He worked out the value of the shares at Rs. 133.70 per share. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, worked out the value of each share at Rs. 149.59. This difference arose due to the fact that the Wealth-tax Officer ignored the amount which had been kept by the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Electrical Executive Engineer, Uesd Vs. Bihar 440 Volts, Vidyut Upbhok ...
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 17.3.94 passed by the District Forum, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 20 of 90 by which the case of the complainant was dismissed for default. The appellant here was the complainant and the respondent here was the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. On information lodged by the complainant a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by the Subdivisional Magistrate apprehending breach of piece for disconnecting the electric line of the complainant by the opposite party for non-payment of the dues. The complainant also filed Title Suit No. 239/88 against the opposite party and it appears that injunction was issued on 6.1.89 against the opposite party under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the opposite party, from disconnecting the electric connection of the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Lal Babu Sah
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13th April, 1994 passed by the District Forum, Palamu at Daltanganj in Complaint Case No. 7 of 1994 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 for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. On 20.4.93 the complainant sent by money order Rs. 275/- to Sitamarhi. The money order was posted at Babhandi Branch Post Office. But it did not reach Sitamarhi and hence the complainant on 11.9.93 made complaint with regard thereto which was received by the opposite party on 14.9.93. The opposite party found that the money order had not reached Sitamarhi. He issued duplicate money order on 20th January, 94, information regarding which was given to the complainant as well as the Post Master, Sitamarhi and the payee received the amount through that money order on 2.3.94. 3. As there was delay of about a year in the payme...
Tag this Judgment!Akhauri Dadan Prasad Vs. Vishwanath Jha and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
S.N. Jha, J.1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 130 of 1980, which respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') had preferred seeking quashing of orders and notification giving retrospective appointment and seniority on the post of Mechanical Overseer (now Mechanical Junior Engineer) to the appellant vis-a-vis the respondent, and rejecting the representation filed by the respondent in the matter. He also sought quashing of the gradation list, Annexure-19. By amendment the respondent also challenged the promotion of the appellant to the post of Sub-divisional Officer vide order contained in Annexure-21. The learned Single Judge has held that although the appellant initially ranked senior to the respondent, on account of his retrenchment from service and fresh appointment there was break in service and consequently the respondent became senior to the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Govind Ram and Co.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
1. The Income-tax Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was permissible to the assessee to challenge the charging of interest when the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment order with a direction to charge interest was upheld by the Tribunal ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no interest was leviable made under Section 147/143(3) and under Section 263 ?' 2. For the facts of this case we may refer to paragraph 3 of the statement of the case which is as under : '3. While making the original assessment under Section 143(3)/148, the Income-tax Officer had not charged any interest un...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bihar State Forest Development Corporat ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
1. The assessee-respondent is a Government of Bihar undertaking incorporated as a limited company under the Indian Companies Act. It has been granted a lease of forest land by the Government of Bihar for a period of 30 years. The terms of the lease deed, however, permit the Government to resume possession at any time during the currency of the lease period. The assessee has been deriving income from man-made forest as well as natural forest and which is, therefore, both agricultural and non-agricultural in nature. Section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, excludes agricultural income from the purview of the total income and the same is thus not exigible to income-tax. As, however, no separate accounts were ever maintained by the assessee the entire income was being taxed as income from non-agricultural sources. 2. The dispute in this batch of references relates to the question of deduction of the expenses incurred in regeneration of forest. According to the assessee, the expenses in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Lal Ajmani
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
S.N. Jha, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, has referred the following question to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income from property, proposed to be transferred, should not be assessed in the hands of the assessee even though the transfer has not been effected in favour of intending purchaser by way of registered sale deed?'2. The material facts are as follows :3. The assessee is an individual. During the relevant period, he was a partner of a firm, Bokaro Diesel. He also carried on a separate business in the name of Krishna Lal and Company. He filed a return showing income of Rs. 13,313 for the assessment year 1978-79 in which he did not disclose the income from the house property which was being shown in the returns in the previous years, on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jindal Brothers
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Sachchidanand Jha, J. 1. In these references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, a common question of law has been referred to this court for opinion. The question of law, as framed by the Tribunal, is : ' Whether on a proper construction of Section 271(1)(a) read with Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in upholding cancellation of penalty by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the case of the assessee (registered firm) ?' 2. The material facts are as follows : The assessee is a registered firm. It filed returns of income for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77 on July 28, 1977, as against the due dates being June 30, 1973, for the assessment year 1973-74, June 30, 1974, for the assessment year 1974-75, June 30, 1975, for the assessment year 1975-76 and June 30, 1976, for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer in the course of assessment proceedings initiated penalty proceedings for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »