Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(P& H)583; [2009]312ITR151(P& H)
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. These appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act (for short the 'Act') have been filed by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby it has been held that the interest on enhanced compensation is taxable when the issue relating to enhanced compensation attains its finality as the same would accrue to the assessee at that time only.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had received an enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation during the year under consideration. The assessee filed return of income and showed interest income on accrual basis from year to year. The AO held that the income from interest received by the assessee has to be assessed in the year of its receipt.3. The CIT(A) held that the amount of interest cannot be termed as income of the year to be taxed in a particular assessment year unless the same has become final. On appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal it was held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR411
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. This is plaintiffs' regular second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1985 passed by Additional District Judge (I), Faridkot whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1981 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Palwal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction, has been reversed and suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed being not maintainable. The defendant has also filed Cross-Objection No. 25-C of 2006 impugning the findings of the 1st Appellate Court whereby verdict of the trial Court on issues No. 1, 2, 7 and 10 has been affirmed. Hence, both RSA No. 3067 of 1985 and Cross-Objection No. 25-C of 2006 are being decided by this common judgment.2. The bone of contention between the parties is a three-storied house, as depicted in site-plan, Ex. P3. Appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction with a direction to respondent/defendant to vacate and handover the possession of the suit property. According to plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR778
Arvind Kumar, J.1. Heard.Notice of MotionMr. H.S. Brar, DAG Punjab accepts notice.The present petitioners have challenged the order 5.3.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as an additional accused in a case arising out of FIR No.247 dated 20.10.2006, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Rajpura.2. Kehar Singh complainant was examined as PW.l when application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved, thereupon further cross-examination of the witness was deferred, as reflected from statement Annexure P-4.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the approach of the learned trial Court is not in conformity with the latest dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Mohd. Shaft v. Mohd. Rafiq 2007 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 762, wherein it has been held that the Court cannot summon the person on the basis of examination-in-chief of the witness and the satisfaction of the Court ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)3PLR145
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to confirm the auction/sale dated 24.2.2006 qua the residential house of the petitioner and further that the respondents be directed not to take over the possession of the residential house of the petitioner forcibly and illegally; and further for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the scheme for compromise settlement of the accounts.2. M/s Deep Industries Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar availed loan from the respondents-HFC and executed hypothecation deed dated 12.11.1993, 6.4.1995 and 3.7.1995 to secure repayment of financial assistance of Rs. 6.10 lacs, 2.20 lacs and 2.35 lacs as per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. The petitioner stood guarantor for the repayment of the said loan with interest and miscellaneous expenses and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2008P& H148; (2008)3PLR148
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. The petitioner, who is a poor mason and had taken a small house loan of Rs. 4,80,000/- from the respondent Bank, has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondent-bank whereby the house for which the aforesaid loan was taken, has been sold in a fake auction in illegal, arbitrary and fraudulent manner by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The instant case is an example of unreasonableness and highhandedness where the bank authorities have misused the provisions of the Act by selling the house of a poor borrower at a throwaway price in collusion among themselves.2. In the present case, in April, 2003, the petitioner along with his wife had taken a loan of Rs. 4,80,000/- for the purchase of a double storey constructed house situated at Dashmesh Nagar, Patiala. The said house was constructed in an area of 133....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR596
Mohinder Pal, J.1. Claim in the present writ petition is for quashing the orders dated December 20, 2005 (Annexure P-5) May 18, 2006 (Annexure P-7) and August 11, 2006 (Annexure P-9) vide which request of petitioner Arvind Kumar Garg for sanction of 100 per cent medical reimbursement and advance payment as the cost of Nucleas Cochlear Implant of his son, namely, Aabhas Garg, who is profoundly hearing impaired (deaf and mute) to the extent of 110 dbs (100 per cent) hearing loss and is dependant upon the petitioner, was rejected and for issuing a direction to the respondents to approve and reimburse the cost of surgery for this implantation and further allow him to get his son operated from any recognised Hospital within the limit of Rs. 9,78,000/-.2. The petitioner is working as a Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank'). Aabhas Garg, son of the petitioner is suffering from profound, bilateral sensoneurary hearing loss of 110 dbs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)220CTR(P& H)312; [2009]316ITR256(P& H)
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. The assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi (for short the 'Tribunal') passed in ITA No. 5153/Del/2004 dt. 9th Feb., 2007 for the asst. yr. 1996-97 raising the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in having dismissed the appeal of the assessee as infructuous mechanically overlooking the legality and the merits?(ii) Whether the Tribunal order is sustainable against the provisions of Section 153(2A) as per which the set aside proceedings are barred by limitation?2. The assessee, who is the proprietor of M/s Vikas Enterprises is in the lottery business. During the impugned year, the assessee filed the return of income at an amount of Rs. 97,290 on 30th March, 1998 which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 31st March, 1998. Case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was made u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(P& H)77
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench 'A, Chandigarh (for short Tribunal'), dt. 25th April, 2007 (Annex. A-5) passed in IT(SS)A No. 130/Chandi/2005 in the case of Jai Parkash v. Asstt. CIT [reported at (2008) 7 DTR (Chd)(Trib) 301-Ed.] for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 2nd April, 1997, raising the following proposed substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act by ignoring its own finding that the income of Rs. 3,76,640 constituted undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 158BB(1)(ca) r/w Section 158BC(c) of the Act and that such undisclosed income attracted penal provisions under Section 158BFA(2).(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(P& H)281; [2008]303ITR1(P& H)
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench 'A' Chandigarh (for short Tribunal'), dt. 25th Jan., 2007, passed in ITA No. 261/Chd/2005 for the asst. yr. 2001-02 raising the following proposed substantial question of law:Is the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case legally correct in allowing interest and salary to partner when there is a clear finding of fact that books of account are maintained on cash basis and that no payments have been made to the partners?2. The respondent is a firm and a civil contractor. Return for the asst. yr. 2001-02 was filed on 9th March, 2002, declaring an income of Rs. 12,990. In the return, income was worked out by adopting 10 per cent of the gross receipts of Rs. 78,57,707 as income and further reducing interest paid to partners, salary to partners and depreciation, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR618
Permod Kohli, J.C.M. No. 10713-CII of 2007 This is an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons recorded therein, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.F.A.O. No. 2169 of 2007.1. This appeal has been preferred by Smt. Reshma Devi for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak for the death of her mare. The appellant filed claim petition claiming that her mare died in the vehicular accident. The grievance is that no compensation has been awarded for loss of future income. It is alleged that mare was the source of income as she was being used for commercial purposes. Right to claim compensation and liability to pay such compensation for death or bodily injury is governed by Sections 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 on the basis of no fault and fault liability, respectively. The death and bodily injury referred to in these Sections relate to any person and no animal, by any stretch of imagination, ca...
Tag this Judgment!