Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1996]222ITR375(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. These petitions are being decided by a common order because in all the petitions the vires of Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have been challenged and the petitioners have prayed for declaring these provisions to be ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. They have also prayed for quashing of the orders issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes rejecting their prayer for waiver of interest, etc.2. For the purposes of this order, it will be appropriate to make reference to a few facts from C. W. P. No. 748 of 1994. The petitioner Sant Lal, is a partner of Samkhon Wala Brothers, which is carrying on business of gold at Sirsa. Search and seizure operations were conducted on the business and residential premises of the petitioner on February 10, 1982. Cash amounting to Rs. 3,71,000 and gold ornaments/bullion worth Rs. 55,65,852 were recovered during the search and seizure operations. Out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)116PLR547
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These two petitions are inter-related and, therefore, we are disposing them by a common order. In the petition filed by Gulmohar Estate Ltd., prayer has been made to quash order dated 20.1.1995 passed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana and also for restraining respondent No. 2 from taking any action pursuant to the impugned order. In the writ petition filed by the Garden Estate Residents Welfare Association, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to comply with the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the provisions of the Haryana Apartments Ownership Act, 1983 as well as Article 3 of the agreement entered into between respondents 2 and 3. It has also been prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to take over the colony and to complete the external and internal works within a period of three months and to provide amenities in the colony at the cost of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)118PLR765
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure were amended to introduce a proviso to limit and control the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Clause (a) to proviso to Sub-section (i) of Section 115 provided that the High Court would not vary or reverse any order in the course of suit or other proceedings except where it finally disposes of the suit or other proceedings. While Clause (b) of the proviso to the same Sub-section provided that if the order passed would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to a party against whom such an order is made, then the High Court could exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The effect and scope of these limitations on the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is the precise question that falls for determination in the present case.2. Before adverting myself to the legal controversy it may be appropriate to refer to the necessary facts giving rise to the present petition. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1999)121PLR443
N.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This is petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the orders dt. 25th March, 1996, and 27th December, 1996, passed by the CIT under ss. 273A and 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') respectively. 2. Petitioner owned certain agricultural land, he received compensation from the Haryana Government on 13th February, 1991, consequent upon the acquisition of his land. He also received interest for several years on the amount of compensation. He was liable to pay income-tax on the interest income received by him for different years. The petitioner filed returns for different assessment years showing income from interest. The AO completed assessments on 31st August, 1992, under s. 143(1) of the Act for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1988-89. The AO also charged interest under ss. 138(8) and 217 of the Act for the aforesaid assessment year as aggregating to Rs. 2,30,881. The AO levied penalty also for failure to furnish returns, without reasonabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2001P& H261
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The petitioners in these five petitions maintain that the Government is struggling to keep its appearances up and the expenses down. It is facing an acute financial crisis. Vet. it has decided to have new town - 'Anandgarh'. Next to Chandigarh. The petitioners complain that the Government's decision to set up the city and the notifications for acquisition of about 10,552 acres of land are a fire that would finish the farms and the farmers, the garden and the greenery. If should be put down before it damages and destroys the residences and the residents of 29 villages.2. In a nutshell, the petitioners allege that the provisions of law including the 'Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995' have not been observed. The mandate of law controlling the periphery of Chandigarh has not been followed. The advice of the Central Government in the ministry of Urban Development to refer the matter to a committee of experts has not been heeded. The protest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2002]254ITR6(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. This case has been placed before the Full Bench along with I. T. A. No. 83 of 2001 -- CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation, Section 17-B, Chandigarh, for determination of the following question of law : 'Whether Section 32AB(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or directory and delayed filing of audit report would disentitle an assessee from claiming the benefit of deduction under Section 32AB(1) ?' The background facts : The income-tax returns filed by the assessee -- Punjab Financial Corporation for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were accepted by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), and deductions claimed under Section 32AB(1) were allowed. Subsequently, he issued notices under Section 154 of the Act proposing withdrawal of the deductions on the ground that the assessee had failed to file the audit report with the returns as required by Section 32AB(5). On receipt of the notices, the assessee furnishe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1310; 2005(3)SLJ354(P& H)
Surya Kant, J.1. Whether the allegations of fraud in public employment centrestaged on the 'procedure and mechanism' adopted by the State of Punjab in the wholesome selection of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) from 'Outstanding Sports Persons', can be a subject matter of public interest litigation or not and whether this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain such public interest litigation, even if it is found to be a probono publico to prevent and remedy the abuse and misuse of executive powers by the State apparatus, or it shall amount to mere adjudication of 'competing claims' between two sets of parties with no element of larger public interest involved are some of the vital issues to which this larger Bench is confronted with. The other related issues pertaining to the legality and propriety of these selections have also been raised in certain individual writ petitions which we propose to dispose of along with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)193CTR(P& H)184; [2005]272ITR1(P& H); (2005)139PLR201
N.K. Sud, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition had filed a refund claim for the assessment year 1995-96 under Section 237 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Since the claim was made after the period of limitation prescribed in Section 239 of the Act, he moved an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act which has been rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short 'the Board') without assigning any reasons vide order dated May 25, 2003 (annexure P-l). The petitioner impugns this order.2. When the matter came up for motion hearing before a Division Bench of which one of us (N. K. Sud, J.) was a member, a decision of another Division Bench of this court in Niranjan Dass v. CBDT , was relied upon to contend that the mandatory provisions of Section 239 of the Act were not amenable to relaxation by the Board through instructions under Section 119 of the Act. Interestingly, learned counsel for the assessce as well as the Revenue co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2005]142TAXMAN528(Punj& Har)
N.K. Sud J.The petitioner in this writ petition had filed a refund claim for the assessment year 1995-96 under section 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since the claim was made after the period of limitation prescribed in section 239 of the Act, he moved an application for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act which has been rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short 'the Board') without assigning any reasons vide order dated May 25, 2003 (annexure P-1). The petitioner impugns this order.2. When the matter came up for motion hearing before a Division Bench of which one of us (N. K. Sud J) was a member, a decision of another Division Bench of this court in Niranjan Dass v. CBDT , was relied upon to contend that the mandatory provisions of section 239 of the Act were not amenable to relaxation by the Board through instructions under section 119 of the Act. Interestingly, learned counsel for the assessee as well as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR400
ORDERSurya Kant, J.1. Challenge to a notification dated November 7, 2002 issued by the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Act) whereby it has been directed that the provisions of the aforesaid Rent Act shall not apply to the 'Buildings and rented Lands' whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 1500/-, has given rise to these bunch of writ petitions (Civil Writ Petition Nos. 20221 and 20232 of 2003, 1829, 1978 to 2065, 2689, 3902, 7360, 7836, 9855 and 11029 to 11034 of 2004) instituted by various tenants of residential. scheduled and/or commercial buildings located in the U.T. of Chandigarh, out of which CWP No. 20221 of 2003 has been dubbed as Public Interest Litigation also. Since the facts and questions of law involved in these writ petitions are common, we propose to decide them by this common judgment...
Tag this Judgment!