Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1987]163ITR484(P& H)
S.P. Goyal, J.1. The Revenue moved this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act for a mandamus directing the Tribunal to refer the three questions stated therein for the opinion of this court. However, at the time of arguments, the petition was pressed qua questions Nos. 1 and 2 only which read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in admitting fresh grounds of appeal in respect of deduction under Section 35B on items with respect to which no claim had been made before the Income-tax Officer ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction in respect of the commission paid to the STC/HHEC particularly when no such claim had been made before the Income-tax Officer during...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2(1986)ACC427
M.M. Punchhi, J.1. Parvinder Singh, aged about 16 years, a student, died on June 23, 1979, as a result of a motor accident caused by a bus belonging to the Haryana Roadways. The deceased at that time was riding a bicycle, the bus came from behind and after hitting him kept him dragged upto a distance of about 40 or 50 feet. The mother of the deceased, by the name of Kailash Kaur, filed an application for compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- on account of the loss of her son.2. The driver of the bus, Balbir Singh, however, had a different version, as, according to him, the cyclist himself was at fault.3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues:1. Was the death of Parvinder Singh deceased at 7-15 a.m. on 23-6-1979 due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HYA-1456 by Respondent No. 1 on the road opposite Dewan Krishan Kishore College, Ambala Cantt, as alleged OPD.2. In case issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1986CriLJ1371
ORDERM.M. Punchhi, J.1. What is the true import and significance of Sub-section (5) of Section 167, Cri. P.C. requires to be ascertained in this petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of proceedings.2. The petitioner was accused of offence under Sections 279/304A, Penal Code. The first information in that regard was registered at Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The petitioner was arrested on 14-1-1984. The investigating agency prepared a challan for filing it in Court and handed it over to the concerned District Attorney. On 11-10-1984, the challan was received back by the investigation on his raising some objections. On 13-10-1984, an application for grant of permission to investigate further was made to the concerned Magistrate under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 167, Cr. P.C. On that date itself, the permission was granted. After completing investigation, the challan was presented on 20-10-1984. The petitioner challenged the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H414
1. The matter in controversy here is with regard to the vicarious liability of the State of Punjab for the accident caused by the negligent driving of a Punjab Roadways bus, not by its driver, but the conductor there of. 2. While waiting to see off his sister at the bus stand, Gurdaspur, Sodagar Singh and his minor son Sanjeev Kumar were run over and killed by a Punjab Roadways bus PPN 219 which suddenly came there from behind without warning. This happened on July 8, 1971. 3. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the bus was being driven by bus conductor Surinder Singh and that it was the rash and negligent driving thereof that was the cause of the accident. A sum of Rs. 78,000/- was awarded as compensation to the widow mother and daughters of Sodagar Singh deceased. 4. The contention raised by Mr. G. S. Grewal, Advocate General, Punjab, was that it was no part of the duty of the bus conductor to drive the bus and this being so, no liability in respect of what he had done could be f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H355
1. The controversy in appeal here is with regard to the true construction and interpretation of the registered will executed by the testator Dewan Singh in favour of his wife Dhan Kaur. Did he thereby confer an absolute estate upon her or was she left merely as a limited owner with no right of alienation? The contest now is between the widow and the nephews of the said Dewan Singh.2. The will states,'Upon my death my wife Dhan Kaur shall be the sole full proprietor of my entire moveable and immoveable property situate anywhere'. Below the signatures of the testator and the attesting witnesses, at the foot of the will, appears the clause,'I certify that no word in the writing is doubtful and Shrimati Dhan Kaur shall have no right to alienate my Property'. This is signed by Dewan Singh but not by any of the attesting witnesses. The plaintiffs, who are the nephews of Dewan Singh, relying upon this later clause, now seek a declaration that his widow Dhan Kaur was not entitled to alienate t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1987)59CTR(P& H)21; [1987]165ITR46(P& H)
S.S. Dewan, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code' ), Tilak Raj and Satya Pal, petitioners, have sought quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent through a complaint dated March 31, 1977, and in which thepetitioners have been charge-sheeted by the trial magistrate for the offence under Section 278 of the Income-tax Act by his order dated February 17, 1985.2. Without going into the details of the complaint, in substance the allegations therein amount to this that the petitioners, being the partners of a firm known as M/s. Ajay Textile Mills, were lending their names to their co-accused for the purpose of ostensible and fictitious sale to such concerns who had imported wooltops with a view to enable the latter concerns to conceal substantially major part of their income. The petitioners were charged for abetting their co-accused to file false returns before the Income-tax Authorities and thus committing an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1986)51CTR(P& H)219; [1987]164ITR779(P& H)
S.P. Goyal, J.1. The assessee is a registered partnership concern. The last date for filing its return was June 30, 1966, but it was filed on October 13, 1970. The assessment was completed on August 31, 1971, on a total income of Rs. 1,46,170. For the delay in filing the return, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), were initiated simultaneously when the assessment was completed. The assessee in its reply submitted various explanations which did not find favour with the assessing authority. The assessee also pleaded that the default was complete on October 13, 1970, when the return was filed and under the provisions of Section 275, as it stood then, the penalty proceedings should have been completed within a period of two years from the date of the completion of the assessment proceedings. The assessing authority overruled this contention as well being of the view that the provisions of Section 275, as amended by the Tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1987]164ITR789(P& H)
S.P. Goyal, J.1. The Hindu undivided family consisting of Shri Sehdev Parsad Jain, the karta, his wife, Shrimati Bimla Devi, and two minor sons, Lalit Kumar and Jatinder Kishore, was the owner of Laxmi Dyeing and Finishing Factory, Ludhiana. According to the assessee, a memorandum of partition was recorded on July 13, 1971, whereby a partial partition was effected with effect from April 1, 1971, and the right to share the profits of the said firm was divided equally amongst the four members of the Hindu undivided family. On an application made by the assessee under Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Officer, after necessary inquiry, recorded that a partial partition had taken place in the family on April 1, 1971. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Act being of the view that no partition, in fact, had taken place and the order of the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1987]164ITR763(P& H)
K.P.S. Sandhu, J. 1. Jog Raj, the petitioner, has come up in revision against his conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for sixty days, under Section 227 of the Income-tax Act. 2. The petitioner is an active partner in a firm known by the name and style of Messrs Himalaya Medical Store, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner filed a return under his own signature for the firm for the assessment year 1977-78. This return included the income of the business at Hoshiarpur as well as a branch of the concern at Gagret. The assessable income shown by the petitioner was Rs. 1,42,402. The return came up for scrutiny before the Income-tax Officer, Hoshiarpur. Since he entertained some doubts as to the correctness of the information supplied in the return, he issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 60,570 should not be added to the income.3. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1986)54CTR(P& H)254; [1987]164ITR774(P& H)
S.P. Goyal, J. 1. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of rice and paddy, was required to file quarterly returns of its turnover under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short called 'the Act'). The firm filed the return for the financial year 1968-69 and claimed exemption under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act from the payment of purchase tax on the purchase of paddy amounting to Rs. 28,13,801.41 which was rejected and the District Excise and Taxation Officer, by his order dated July 2, 1969, assessed the purchase tax payable at Rs. 84,765.44. On appeal, the realisation of the tax was stayed on theassessee's depositing Rs. 10,000, vide order dated September 9, 1969. When they were served with a notice for payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 74,765.44, they filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the assessment order, but the same was dismissed on January 19, 1970. The letters patent appeal filed by...
Tag this Judgment!