Patna Court July 1996 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.
Divisional Engineer Telephones Vs. Lok Nath Agrawal
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 2nd September, 1993 passed by the District Forum/Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case No. 144 of 92 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 as put in by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant had Telephone No. 2212 Chapra with S.T.D. facility. But since the complainant got the telephone connection the opposite party with a motive to vex the complainant used to send inflated and excessive bills in respect of his telephone. The complainant therefore filed application for withdrawal of the S.T.D. facility from his telephone. Subsequent thereto his telephone number was changed to 3213 and the S.T.D. facility was withdrawn. But in respect of this telephone number also he received inflated and excessive bills and for the period from 16.1.92 to 15.3.92 he received a bill for Rs. 867/- which was excessive ...
Ashis Mukerji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, the owner of certain property, seeks to challenge the order dated February 22, 1995, of the appropriate authority passed under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), under which the property of the petitioner was ordered to be acquired by the Central Government and subsequently possession was taken over.2. Before we examine the provisions of law and consider the arguments we may briefly note the salient terms of the agreement which led to the passing of the order under Section 269UD of the Act.3. This agreement is dated January 28, 1994, and is described as a development agreement, The petitioner is the party of the first part and Mahendra Developers Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 3, of the second part. The petitioner is referred to as the land owner and the second party as the developer. The property which is the subject-matter of acquisition has been describ...
Brij Bihari Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners in their application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 4-3-1992 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, (respondent No. 3) in revision case No. 20/92 giving direction to the Circle Officer, Nawanagar, (respondent No. 5) for incorporating six decimals of land bearing plot No. 267 in the name of Devidayal Pandey (respondent No. 6) on the ground the order was perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The petitioners' case is that plot No. 267 having an area of six decimal of Khata No. 93 in village Nokhpur in Buxar district stood accorded in the revisional survey Khatian as 'Rasta-Gali' the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar'. Plot Nos. 265 and 266 being to the petitioners and are adjacent to plot No. 267. The petitioners claim to be using the aforesaid six decimals of land as their Rasta since long. The said Rasta, it is alleged, was illegally and mischievously closed by r...
Awadhesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Sharma and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
S.N. Jha and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the orders of the District Sub Registrar, Gaya, directing compulsory registration of a sale deed under Sections 73/74 of the Indian Registration Act.2. The short facts of the case are that Rajendra Prasad Sharma, respondent No. 1 herein, executed a sale deed with respect to parcels of land situate in the districts of Gaya and Patna in favour of the appellants which was presented for registration at Jehanabad Sub Registry. He later backed out and did not appear to admit the execution before the Registring authority. The Sub Registrar, Jehanabad, in the circumstances, refused to register the deed. The appellants herein made an application under Section 73 of the Registration Act. A plea was taken on behalf of respondent No. 1 that he was minor on the date of execution of the sale deed and, therefore, had no disposing capacity. The Distric...
Rajendra Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, referred to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law for its opinion. The question relates to the assessment year 1981-82 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the identity of the creditor is not in dispute the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 46,000 represented the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources though the creditor was not summoned and examined under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2, Whether the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the addition of Rs. 46,000 alleged to be the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources is in the teeth of law laid down by this court in the cases of Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT : [1976]103ITR344(Patna) and Addl. CIT v. Hanuman Agarwal : [1985]151ITR150(Patna) 2. The assessee is a contractor. For the assessment year in question, he did...
Girdhari Lal Tiware and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Nagendra Rai, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.6.1991 taking cognizance against the petitioner and one Naresh Kumar Agrawal.3. According to the prosecution case, the Assistant District Supply Officer, Saraikelia along with the other officials inspected the godown of one Naresh Kumar Agarwal situated in the house of Lalit Kumar Tulsiyan on 28.2.1991 and found 6243 tins of the edible oil stored in two rooms. On enquiry it transpired that the aforesaid said tins of edible oil belonged to Naresh Kumar Agarwal and said godown was not found mention in the licence. Thereafter, a first information report was lodged by the District Supply Officer against the Proprietor Naresh Kumar Agarwal and his employees (petitioners) as well as the owner of the house, alleging therein that the licence and his employees in conspiracy with the owner of the house has stored the aforesaid tins of edible oil in protection with t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Card Board Products
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), referred to this court the following question of law for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that legal expenditure incurred by a firm to defend a suit filed by an ex-partner to protect her/his own interest is an allowable expenditure while computing the income of a firm ?' 2. The facts as appearing from the statement of case are brief though sketchy. The assessee is a partnership firm. The Income-tax Officer in computing the income of the assessee-firm for the two aforesaid assessment years disallowed sums of Rs. 18,752 and Rs. 16,225 claimed by the assessee as legal charges in defending the suit filed on behalf of an ex-partner for dissolution of the assessee-firm, The Income-tax Officer disallowed these amounts on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.S. Anand
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
1. At the instance of the Revenue, this court has directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, to refer the following question to this court for its opinion : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that investment allowance is allowable on the cost of new dumpers at Rs. 5,63,844 ?' The question is if an assessee is entitled to investment allowance on a dumper. Section 32A(1)(b) provides that no investment allowance under Section 32A will be allowable in case of 'any office appliances or road transport vehicles.' We do not think that by any stretch of imagination it can be said that dumper can be used as road transport vehicle. 2. Mr. Vidyarthi, however, does not press this reference application. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs....
Harichandra Thakur and anr. Vs. Anchal Adhikar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.4.1985 passed by the learned single judge in C.W.J.C. No. 274 of 1980, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. In the said writ petition, the appellants had, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders contained in Annexure-2, 6 and 8 of the writ petition.2. The facts of this case lies in a very narrow compass. It may be borne in mind that, in the writ petition, there were three petitioners, namely, Jugal Kishore Thakur (Petitioner No. 1) his son Harichandra Thakur (petitioner No. 2) and Mostt. Gulab Devi (petitioner No. 3), while the instant appeal has been filed by Harichandra Thakur as appellant No. 1 and Mostt. Gulab Devi as appellant No. 2. The case of the writ petitioners, inter alia, was that the land in question, which was the subject matter of a proceeding under the ...
Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex, Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
D.P. Wadhwa, C.J. 1. In these eight writ applications, we have heard common arguments. The questions raised are with respect to chargeability of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). These sections were inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. A Bench of this court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. OT : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) , while interpreting Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, held that interest under these sections should not be charged on excess tax as per income determined under Sections 143(3)/144 of the Act and said that interest under Section 234A was leviable on the tax on the total income as declared in the return. The correctness of this decision has been doubted before us by the Revenue and it has been submitted that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative decision. 2. While Section 234A deals with levy of interest for default in furnishing return of income...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »