Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2002P& H92
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. We have three petitions. The question is common. Do the petitioners have a right to stay on the land which they have unauthor-isedly occupied and should the respondent-authorities be restrained from demolishing the jhuggis/structures that the petitioners have raised Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the facts in CPW No. 15270 of 1999. These may be briefly noticed.2. The 90 petitioners claim to be residing in Labour Colony No. 5, Village Burail, in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. They claim to be doing labour jobs. It is further alleged that they have got identity cards as well as ration cards. They have been residing in the jhuggis for the last more than 10 years. The Chandigarh Administration has allotted the numbers to the Jhuggis by creating different blocks viz. A, B, C and D etc.3. On October 29, 1999, the Enforcement Wing of the Administration reached the site with the purpose of demolishing the jhuggis. The petitioners claimed that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2001)170CTR(P& H)40; [2001]250ITR677(P& H)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in valuing the unquoted shares of Kakkar Steel Complex (P.) Ltd, for the purposes of working out the value of the deemed gift on March 20, 1979, reference should be made to the balance-sheet of the said company as on March 31, 1978, and not to the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1979 ?'2. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.3. On March 20, (979. the assessee sold 250 shares of Kakkar Steel Complex (P.) Ltd. to Naval Kumar and Vipan Kumar for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000. Each share had a face value of Rs. 1,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner vide his assessment order dated March 5, 1983, held that 'the market value of the shares even if worked out with yield method would not be less than Rs. 2,199 per share.' Thus, she came to the conclusion that the shares...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2001]119TAXMAN664(Punj& Har)
ORDERGupta, J. The respondent-assessee filed his return for the assessment year 1988-89. It claimed that the total income was Rs. 28,130. Vide order dated 30-3-1989, the assessing authority fixed the taxable income at Rs. 1,79,480. This was done on the assumption that the assessee must have made a profit of 10 per cent. The assessee filed an appeal. Vide order dated 19-6-1990, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's claim partly. It held that the taxable income was Rs. 58,643. The order was affirmed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21-1-1998. The department filed an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a reference to this court. Vide order dated 3-3-1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.3, the prayer for reference has been declined. Aggrieved by the order, the revenue has filed this petition under section 256(2). It prays that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following question for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2002)172CTR(P& H)538; [2001]252ITR842(P& H)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court on a petition by the assessee :'(i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of surtax payable by it in pursuance to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in arriving at the taxable income ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rightly upheld the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 4,500 in respect of conference expenses ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no weighted deduction under Section 35B is available in respect of freight expenses of Rs. 7,75,541, octroi duty of Rs. 82,171, insurance charges of Rs. 70,376 and other expenses such as loading, unloading and conveyance expenses amounting to Rs. 327 ?' 2. Even the R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2001]124STC381(P& H)
Jawahar lal gupta, J.1. The petitioner is running an industrial unit. It applied for the issue of an eligibility certificate so as to avail of certain concessions regarding exemption from payment of sales tax, etc., granted by the Government. The petitioner's application was rejected vide order dated January 6, 2000. A copy of this order has been produced as annexure P7 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed vide order dated July 11, 2000. A copy of this order has been produced as annexure P9 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the two orders the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition. It prays that these orders be quashed and that the respondents be directed to release the admissible benefits.2. Respondents have filed a written statement contesting the petitioner's claim.3. Counsel for the parties have been heard.4. A perusal of the order at annexure P9 shows that the relief has been declined only o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2001P& H335
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. Is the action of the Government in appointing respondent No. 4 as a Notary illegal This is the short question that arises in the present case. A few facts may be noticed.2. The petitioner is an advocate. He had applied for the appointment as a Notary. Vide letter dated October 8, 1998, he was duly recommended for appointment by the Deputy Commissioner for one of the two available vacancies. Vide order dated January 20, 2000, the State Government had appointed Mr. Avtar Singh Dhanoa against one of the two vacancies. For the second vacancy, the Government had asked the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter. It was also observed that the name of Ujaggar Singh who had submitted the application may also be considered. A copy of this letter is at Annexure P.9 with the writ petition. On receipt of this letter, the Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar had reiterated his recommendation for the appointment of the petitioner. However, the Government had vide its order date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2001]250ITR622(P& H)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in allowing the set-off of loss relating to house property against income under the other heads for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 ?'2. The assessee had paid interest during the relevant years. On this basis, it had claimed that the loss against the income from house property be set off against the income under the other heads. The claim was declined by the assessing authority. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had found that 'any loss computed under the head 'House property' is adjustable against other income as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act'. Thus, the assessing authority was directed to 'compute the income from house property after allowing interest on the borrowed capital . . . and adj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2001]250ITR751(P& H)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of theAppellate Assistant Commissioner in allowing the set off of loss relating tohouse property against income under the other heads for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 ?'2. The reference relates to three assessment years. The assessee claimed to have paid Rs. 13,211. Rs. 22,159 and Rs. 18,018 by way of interest. On this basis, it was claimed that there was loss in the income from house property. The assessee claimed that this loss had to be set off against the income derived from business in respect of the three assessment years. The claim was disallowed by the assessing authority. The appeal filed by the assessee was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal having accepte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2003ACJ1083
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.1. The Insurance Company is challenging the award of the Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the widow and daughter of deceased Ajit Singh who died in the motor accident.2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was a collusion between the respondents-claimants and the driver and owner of the vehicle. According to the learned Counsel, the vehicle number mentioned in the FIR is 640 while the vehicle number insured with the appellant is 040. Only because of the vehicle number being differently recorded in the FIR, the evidence of the respondents-claimants cannot be discarded. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the witnesses have deposed regarding the number of the vehicle being 040 and not 640. Even then it has to be seen that the FIR has been lodged on the first information and that has to be by one person only and not by more than one. In such a case, it will not be proper to throw out the evidence only because of the wrong number mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2001P& H331
M.L. Singhal, J. 1. M/s M.S.T.C. Ltd., 3 Government of India undertaking and a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 69,43,692/- against M/s Punjab Steel Corporation, Sekhri Building Shukar Pura, DEN Road, Balala, S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, Anand Kuntar, Inder Kumar sons and Smt. Janaki Rani Sekhri wife of Sh. Vishwamiter Sekhri, and H.U.F. M/s Vish waiter Sekhri and sons through Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sekhri as Karta, being the price of goods and interest thereon.2. In this case, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-'i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 69,43,692/- being the price of goods? OPP ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery interest under Order 7 rule 1 CPC? OPP iii) Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this Court? If so, its effect? OPD iv) Whether the defendant deposited the amount to the tune of Rs. 26,70,452.20 in the account of the plaintiff in...
Tag this Judgment!