Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-30-1979
Reported in : 48(1979)CLT478; (1980)14CTR(Ori)193; [1980]123ITR513(Orissa)
..... the tax liability was in the nature of a benefit or perquisite contemplated in clause (iv) of section 28 of the act, introduced by section 7 of the finance act of 1964, and for the period prior to the amendment the benefit or perquisite was not liable to be charged to tax under the head ' profits and gains of business '. ..... the assessment years under consideration ' 19. to start with, let us deal with the first two years. admittedly, the amendment brought about by the finance act, 5 of 1964, has no application to these two years as the amendment became operative after the end of thesecond year under consideration. the concept of adding the perquisites in the case of a ..... the position clear. so far as computation of business income under ' d' category in chap. iv of the act is concerned, there was no such provision until the amendment referred to above came into the act. there is force in the stand taken by mr. mohanty for the assessee that in the absence of a provision as introduced with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-30-1979
Reported in : [1980]126ITR245(Orissa)
..... by the tribunal on the provision of sub-section (3) of section 5 seems to be wholly unwarranted. we are not concerned with the position as to whether the amendment introduced with effect from april 1, 1975, was retrospective or not. it is sufficient to indicate that sub-section (3) provided an additional requirement to the clauses named ..... this connection point out that. parliament has also provided for the recovery of the tax due even from the property transferred under section 33 of the act. thus, the position prior to the transfer is retained for all purposes except that the transfer itself is not avoided.'and the court ultimately found in favour of ..... consideration, we are unable to agree with him that he shall be penalised by reason of such transaction. unless there is a clear indication in the provisions of the act itself, we cannot assume that parliament intended to impose a more onerous obligation on the assessee than would have been but for the transfer. we may also in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-17-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Ori122
..... the door to innumerable objections resulting in a protracted proceeding it was thought necessary to restrict the category of objectors, and section 68-d (1) was amended limiting the category of persons entitled to object. rule 6, however, provides that any person or authority may object but it cannot over ride the section, ..... authority aggrieved by the: scheme. the rule cannot enlarge the category enumerated in section 68-d of the act, the legislative changes of 68-d (1) leads' to the same conclusion. the provision prior to its amendment by act 56 of 1969 was to the following effect:-- '(1) any person affected by the schema published under ..... thereby a higher percentage of employment and that whenever private operators enter the field whereby an unhealthy competition with the government or para-government transport services raises its head to the latter's detriment, the routes, where such a competition comes to play, should, as a policy, be nationalised. these considerations on the part of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Ori79; 48(1979)CLT333
..... has been prescribed to be given by the councillor desiring to move a motion and such notice has to be given to the chairman. since the chairman after the amendment of the act is no longer a councillor and as he cannot give notice to himself and decide that his motion is in order, it must be concluded that official business to ..... from ward no. 2 while 27 others were elected from the different wards. opposite party no. 3 was elected as chairman of the municipality by direct franchise under the amended provisions of the act. the council assumed office with effect from 23rd of february, 1979. at the meeting of the council held on 2nd of april, 1979, one of the items in ..... be transacted at the instance of the chairman at a meeting of the council is not a 'motion' contemplated by rule 4. motions and amendments dealt with under rules 15 to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-10-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Ori141; 47(1979)CLT306
..... section i i has been brought in, but in view of the conceded position at the bar that the provisions of the amending act are prospective, no support can be derived from the amendment by the opposite parties.6. the net result, therefore, is that the additional director of public instruction (schools) had no ..... notification running to the following effect:--'in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of the explanation to section 11 of the orissa education act, 1969 (orissa act 15 of 1969) and in supersession of the government notification of the government of orissa in the education and youth services department no. 21396 dated ..... jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding for supersession nor to pass the order of supersession of the managing committee. since there was no jurisdiction in the public officer, the impugned order must be held to be an act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-19-1979
Reported in : [1980]45STC170(Orissa)
..... therein that these notifications were made in supersession of the previous notifications in the matter. the notifications of december, 1977, had to be issued as a consequence of amendment of section 5 of the act.2. out of all the petitioners, the petitioners in 0. j.c. nos. 811 of 1977, 1090 of 1977, 740 of 1978, 140 of 1978 and ..... . -- in exercise of the powers conferred by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the orissa sales tax act, 1947 (orissa act 14 of 1947), the state government do hereby direct that the following amendment shall be made in the notification of the government of orissa, finance department no. 20212 -- cta-14/76-f. dated the 23rd ..... the award which had been made after the expiry of the time specified in the original order and before the date of the amending order, during which period the adjudicator was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to act at all. we do not think the respondents can derive any support from section 21 of the u.p. general clauses .....
Tag this Judgment!