Patna Court September 1997 Judgments

Jagdish Das Vs. Brahmanand Prasad Singh and ors.

Court: Patna

Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. In a road accident dated 31.3.1993, Chandradeep Das, 38 years old son of the appellant died.2. According to the claimant-appellant, while returning home from Hajipur Station chawk near Satkar Hotel, Ramashish chawk, his son was dashed and crushed by a jeep bearing registration No. BHX 360, which was being driven rashly and negligently. He succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.3. Accordingly claim case No. 14 of 1993 was filed and a sum of Rs. 10,25,000/- was claimed as compensation.4. Both the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company appeared in the claim case and filed separate written statement and contested it.5. By the impugned judgment and award the tribunal found that the deceased was 38 years old and his father was about 64 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was unmarried. The tribunal took contribution to the deceased for the maintenance of his father to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month and, therefore, the annual dependency was cal...

Ramashish Rao and ors. Vs. Rambha Devi and ors.

Court: Patna

Guru Sharan Sharma, J.1. These two appeals, one by the owner and driver of the truck, bearing registration No. BHF 6581 and another by its insurer have been filed against the impugned judgment and award passed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in favour of the claimants on account of the death of one Chandrika Prasad on 10.1.1990 in a road accident.2. It is not in dispute that on 10.1.1990 Chandrika Prasad, who was husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 was run over and crushed, resulting in his death by the truck, bearing registration No. BHF 6581.3. On the basis of evidence on record the Tribunal found that Chandrika Prasad was killed in the accident in question and the claimants being his dependants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim application till payment.4. On 10.7.1990, the claim application was filed. Noti...

Udho Rai and anr. Vs. Ambika Tewary and ors.

Court: Patna

Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th March 1980, passed by the First Subordinate Judge, Arrah in Title Suit No. 151 of 1974, whereby the said suit for specific performance of contract and for direction to the defendant No. 1 to execute sale-deed in respect of 6.15 acres of land, described in Schedule 1 to the plaint, in favour of the plaintiffs on receipt of balance consideration money as per agreement for sale dated 5.10.1973, was dismissed.2. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1, Ambika Tiwary of village Bibta, district Patna alongwith his brother Kamta Tiwary acquired the lands detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint by way of gift from his uncle, Indradeo Tiwary. The gifted lands were at village Koil, P.S. Piro, district Bhojpur.3. Admittedly the said property acquired by gift by the two brothers were joint between them, namely, Ambika Tiwary and Kamta Tiwary. The said deed of gift was brought on record and marked as Ext. ...

Mrs. Aruna Mehra Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Devi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, S.C. 1 for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener.2. The intervention petition filed on behalf Sita Mehra, at Flag 'A', is allowed after hearing the parties. It shall form part of the main writ application.3. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Letter No. 2288M dated 14-6-1996, as contained in Annexure-1, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease over an area of 5.93 acres in village Kathkoka, Police Station Tisri, District Giridih has been rejected and fresh notification has been issued without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.4. Mr. Devi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was granted prospecting lease...

Singh Construction and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (1998)64ITD153(Pat.)

23. As we differ in our views in the above case, we request the hon'ble President to kindly refer the matter to the Third Member on the following point : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, net profit on contract should be estimated after disallowing partly specific items of expenses or should be estimated by applying a flat rate of net profit ?" 24. Under sub-section (4) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brief), I have been nominated by the hon'ble President of the "Appellate Tribunal" to act as a Third Member for giving my opinion on a dissent on the following identical points of difference between the learned Members, who heard this appeal : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, net profit on contract should be estimated after disallowing partly specific items of expenses or should be estimated by applying a flat rate of net profit ?" 25. On the facts, as are relevant for the pu...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Sharma Cold Storage and Ice Facto ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (1998)64ITD129(Pat.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against an order of the CIT(A) cancelling a penalty of Rs. 1,25,053 imposed under s. 271(1) (c) of the Act for concealment of income.2. The assessee-company was running a cold storage and also had a small plant for manufacture of ice. The assessee disclosed a net loss for the current year as per P&L a/c of Rs. 7,92,517, which was shown in the return of income also. During the assessment proceedings, certain additions were made on account of which the net loss for the year was reduced to Rs. 5,88,220 as per assessment order. We are concerned in this appeal with the following additions which were later taken into account for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) :Excess receipts estimated 71,092Expenses relating to earlier year 1,06,837Income from Ice estimated 5,000 ------------- 3. The accounts of the assessee were audited. Total receipts from cold storage were shown at Rs. 85,788, which was a steep decline compared to receipts of Rs...

Singh Construction and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

1. The assessee has taken 11 grounds in this appeal. Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 11 are general and do not require any decision thereon. In ground Nos. 9 and 10, the assessee has a grievance that the CIT(A) has not given any finding or decision in respect of disputes raised in ground Nos. 12 and 13 in the first appeal before him. We have examined the impugned order as well as the grounds of appeal taken in the first appeal before the CIT(A) and we are convinced that the grievance of the assessee in this appeal in ground Nos. 9 and 10 is well taken. We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A), with the direction to rehear the assessee and give his finding and decision in respect of disputes raised before him in ground Nos. 12 and 13. We order and direct accordingly.2. In ground No. 1, the assessee states that the CIT(A), while passing the appellate order, has not given any comment in respect of the ground Nos. 1, 9 and 10. In this regard, we have read the ground Nos. 1, 9 and ...

Ashirvad Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Naresh Kumar Sinha, J.Both the applications, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4307 of 1992 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5025 of 1992, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek quashing of the criminal prosecution of the petitioners including the order dated 27-2-1992, taking cognizance under sections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in Complaint Case No. 50 of 1992 pending before the Special Court (Economic Offences), Muzaffarpur. Since a common question of law has been raised, the applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Ashirvad Enterprises is a registered firm. The firm and its partners are the petitioners. A complaint was field on 27-2-1992 by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (O.P. No.2), alleging that the petitioners had wilfully attempted to evade tax, interest or penalty chargeable or imposable under the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by deliberately concealing the accur...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sharma Cold Storage and Ice F ...

Court: Patna

V. K. SINHA, A.M. : June, 1995This is an appeal filed by the Department against an order of the CIT(A) cancelling a penalty of Rs. 1,25,053 imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.2. The assessee-company was running a cold storage and also had a small plant for manufacture of ice. The assessee disclosed a net loss for the current year as per P&L a/c of Rs. 7,92,517, which was shown in the return of income also. During the assessment proceedings, certain additions were made on account of which the net loss for the year was reduced to Rs. 5,88,220 as per assessment order. We are concerned in this appeal with the following additions which were later taken into account for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) :Excess receipts estimated 71,092 Expenses relating to earlier year 1,06,837 Income from Ice estimated 5,000  1,82,929 3. The accounts of the assessee were audited. Total receipts from cold storage were shown at Rs....

Singh Construction and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Patna

ABDUL RAZACK, J.M. :The assessee has taken 11 grounds in this appeal. Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 11 are general and do not require any decision thereon. In ground Nos. 9 and 10, the assessee has a grievance that the CIT(A) has not given any finding or decision in respect of disputes raised in ground Nos. 12 and 13 in the first appeal before him. We have examined the impugned order as well as the grounds of appeal taken in the first appeal before the CIT(A) and we are convinced that the grievance of the assessee in this appeal in ground Nos. 9 and 10 is well taken. We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A), with the direction to rehear the assessee and give his finding and decision in respect of disputes raised before him in ground Nos. 12 and 13. We order and direct accordingly.2. In ground No. 1, the assessee states that the CIT(A), while passing the appellate order, has not given any comment in respect of the ground Nos. 1, 9 and 10. In this regard, we have read the grou...