Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H235; [1977]110ITR1(P& H)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. The facts of the case have given rise to an interesting situation though not to questions of complexity as we first thought. Pursuant to a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 22 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the petitioner (assessee) submitted his return of income for the Assessment year 1960-61 on 20-12-1960. On 23-12-1960, the Income-tax Officer made provisional assessment under Section 23-B of the Act and on the basis of the provisional assessment, he raised a demand on the petitioner for payment of provisional tax of Rs. 50,808/-. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer also issued a notice under Section 23(2) of the Act. The Income-tax Act, 1961, came into force with effect from 1-4-1962. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 1960-61 was completed by the Income-tax Officer on 24-3-1965. He purported to complete the assessment under Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H268
O. Chinnappa Reddy, C.J.1. The appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and the Civil Writ Petition may be disposed of by a common judgment. We proceed to do so.2. In 1966, the Government of Punjab announced its 'New Policy' in regard to Industrial Development and issued a brochure containing the details of the 'New Policy'. It was stated in the brochure that though Punjab had made considerable progress in 'Small Scale Industry', the State was lagging behind in 'Large Scale Industry.' As it was felt that 'Large Scale Industries' were necessary for the survival of 'Small Scale Industries', the Government announced that 'a package of incentives' would be given to those setting up selected industries at any of the three 'focal points' of Dhandari Kalan, Rajpura and Mohali. The concessions and incentives offered, according to the brochure, were:(1) Land to be acquired at focal points and price to be paid in easy instalments, interest being calculated at 4 per cent; the facility to be e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1980P& H242
ORDER1. Hakumat Rai, petitioner No. 1 owned 67 acres of land in villages Karnana and Kaman in district Jullundur. After the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Punjab Act) Special Collector, Agrarian, Punjab somewhere in the years 1954-55 declared an area of 36 standard acres and 5 units of land surplus with Hakumat Rai. He was left with a permissible area of 30 standard acres. However, this area was not utilised for the resettlement of tenants till 6-5-1975 and remained in possession of the petitioners, Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the adult sons of petitioner No. 1.2. On the basis of a decree passed in a suit filed by Arjan Singh, petitioner No. 3 against other petitioners to the effect that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 90 Kanals 15 Marlas, mutation was sanctioned. The petitioners are progressive farmers. They invested huge sums of money on the land in dispute. They installed three tube wells; purchased three t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1982P& H1
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. 1. A sharp cleavage of judicial opinion on the spinal issue--whether the doctrine of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, is attracted to the penalty proceedings strictly within the four corners of S. 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961--has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.** (Order of reference by Division Bench now reported as (1981) 10 Tax Law Rev 193 (P & H) Ed.)2. The factual matrix is brief. The respondent-assessee was a partnership firm. A notice under S. 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was served on the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62. In compliance therewith the return was furnished by the assessee on 13-6-1962, though the due date therefor was 23-6-1961. Admittedly, there was thus a delay of a little more than eleven months in filing the return. The Income-tax Officer consequently initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for the late furnishing of the return.3. The assessee-firm duly furnished a written ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1984P& H26
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether the writ. Court is empowered to limit the scope of the lis in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to one or more specific grounds only, at the threshold stage of its admission is the significant question which necessitated this. reference to the Division Bench.2. N. C. Mahendra petitioner was working. as an Executive Engineer under the Haryana State Electricity Board when, on 4th November, 1974; he was placed, under suspension in view of the departmental proceedings a against him. A charge-sheet was duly served on him on the l3th January; 1975 and after the completion of the enquiry; that followed, he was. served with a show cause notice as to why his three increments be not stopped with cumulative effect. On 11th July; 1977 he submitted a reply thereto, As averred by him, no punishment was inflicted on him and later he was promoted to the post of the Superintending Engineer vide order, Annexure P: 2, dated the l3th of September, l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1983]143ITR620(P& H)
S.S. Kang, J.1. Bhim Singh has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated March 24, 1975 (copy annex. P-3), issued by the ITO, ' B ' Ward, Rohtak.2. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are that Bhim Singh, petitioner, is a wine contractor and has been in this trade since 1952. He has his wine shops at different places. He has been an income-tax assessee since the commencement of his business and has been paying taxes regularly. His accounting year is from 1st of April to the 31st of March of the subsequent year and the relevant year for the purpose of this petition is the accounting year 1957-58, corresponding to 1st of April, 1957, to the 31st of March, 1958, relevant to the assessment year 1958-59. During this assessment year the I.T. authorities conducted a raid on the premises known as Purana Karkhana, Jind, and made intensive searches. Certain documents were s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1987P& H263
S.P. Goyal, J. 1. These three petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3065, 3268 and 3435 of 1986), which are based on identical facts and involve common questions of law, have been filed for quashing the notices dated June 13, 1986, a copy of one of which is attached as Annexure P-6, issued to the petitioners by respondent 6, the Speaker of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, requiring them to show cause as to why they be not disqualified from the membership of the Punjab Legislative Assembly in terms of Art. 191(2) read with paras 2 and 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and his order dated July 4, 1986 (Annexure P-8) rejecting the application (Annexure P-7) of Capt. Amrinder Singh, M.L.A., wherein he claimed to be recognised as the leader of the 27 M.L.As. who were stated to have formed a separate legislative party because of the alleged split in the Shiromani Akali Dal. The attack is two prone. First, that the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 is ultra vires of the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1996]86CompCas842(P& H); (1995)109PLR662
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 and also application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for ad interim injunction against the defendants in Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 titled as Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Utpal Kumar Ganguly, pending in the court of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Rajpura. Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 has been directed against the ad interim order dated March 18, 1994, passed by Sh. G. S. Khurana, Additional District Judge, Patiala, in the pending appeal arising out of Civil Suit No. 33 of 1994 pending in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala.2. Initially, Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, was filed in this court, but before the matter could be finally decided, Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 was filed in the court of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Rajpura. Since the matterinvolv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1995P& H290; (1995)110PLR625
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19-9-1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1994 (Balbir Singh v. Guru Nanak Education Trust). The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 19-9-1994 because the learned Additional District Judge has accepted the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and has dismissed' the injunction application filed by the petitioners.2. In order to determine the various points raised in this petition, it is necessary to make reference to the facts of the case. Guru Nanak Education Trust was registered vide Trust Deed dated 1-6-1969. Originally there were seven trustees and the trust deed contemplated appointment of more trustees. Initially Shri Avtar Singh was the President of the Board of Trustees. He resigned in the year 1970 and was succeeded by Shri Gurnam Singh. Avtar Singh was unanimously elected as President when the said office became vacant due to the death of Sh. Gurnam Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1997P& H87
ORDERR.P. Sethi, Actg. C. J.1. 'All men are created equal' declared Abraham Lincen inhis Gettysburg Address. These words wererepeated by Thomas Jefferson in Declaration of Independence and since 1776 this statement has been echoed by generations in United States. The Liberty and Equality were the watch words of the French Revolution and the foundations upon which the great Magna Carta of England stood. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights States declared. All are equal before law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of law.' Jennings's in his Law of the Consitution (5th Edition page 50) stated, 'Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike.' Dicey's Law of the Constitution, (10 Edition page 202) asserted equality before the law as a corollary from his famous doctrine of Rule of Law. The idea of equality is the heart and soul of the Indian Constit...
Tag this Judgment!