Court : Himachal Pradesh
Deepak Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order dated 20-12-1985 of the first Commissioner (Appeals) had become final and precluded the assessee's right of challenging the fresh assessment on merits after setting aside of the assessment ?2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm filed its return for the assessment year 1983-84. A fire had occurred in one of the forests taken on lease by the assessee and the assessee lodged a claim of Rs. 2,50,800 with the insurance company. The insurance company only paid an amount of Rs. 1,87,000. The assessee claimed that an amount of Rs. 63,800 which was the difference between the amount of loss suffered by it and claimed from the insurance company should be treated as its loss. The assessing officer came to the conclusion that sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC337
Surinder Singh, J.1. The present petition has been directed against the judgment of learned Appellate Authority (II), Shimla, in C.M.A. No. 72-S/14 of 1997 decided on 28th November, 2001 whereby order of eviction passed by Rent Controller (I), Shimla in Rent Petition No. 43-2 of 1991 dated 30.9.1997 was set aside and the petition was dismissed on the ground that the premises in question fell within the definition of the 'Public Premises'.2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the instant petition may be noted thus. Petitioners herein, are the landlords of five storeyed building, known as 'Ramesh Bhawan', situated at Jakhu, Shimla-1, hereinafter to be referred as 'suit premises'. The landlords let out the suit premises to the respondent-bank in the year 1979 for housing its officers and employees along with their families. It has eight residential sets along with two stores on the ground floor. Monthly rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 5,250/- as alleged by the petitioner. Howev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [2008]301ITR276(HP),2008(1)ShimLC394
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The following identical question of law has been sent for the opinion of this Court in the aforesaid reference petitions:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Rule 6 DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, read with the Central Board of Director Taxes Circular No. 200 dated May 31, 1977 (see (1977) 108 I.T.R. (St) 8, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,08,503 in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 40A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. The brief facts are that the assesses firm is based at Shamshi, District Kullu, H.P. It used to purchase goods from certain outside parties, mainly from Chandigarh, Damtal and Palampur. The assessee made payments of more than Rs. 10,000/- in a day to the parties. These payments were made in cash. The Assessing Officer disallowed payments of Rs. 3,57,239 on the ground that they had been made in cash whereas they should have been made by means of crossed cheque or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3911,2009(2)ShimLC159
Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant was a complainant in complaint No. 120-3 of 2007, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act, in short 'the Act' against the respondent.2. The complaint was dismissed in default vide order dated 25.7.2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (3), Shimla, which has an effect of acquittal.3. Against dismissal of her complaint, the appellant herein preferred a revision petition in the court of Sessions, which was withdrawn on 6.6.2008, perhaps realizing that the revision was not competent and the order was appealable. As such, the present appeal4. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. has been filed, assailing the order of dismissal in default, which was barred by limitation, however, vide order dated 26.2.2009, the delay was condoned.5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have examined the record.6. As a matter of fact, the appellant had filed a complaint before the learned trial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Deepak Gupta, J.1. By means of this Income Tax Reference, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court:i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in coming to the conclusion that in revision order passed Under Section 154/155, for charging interest Under Section 139(8) & 215 the application of the provisions of Section 154(3) are mandatory, when in notice issued Under Section 154/155 it has been specifically made clear that the enhancement of income will also increase the assessee's liability.ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in entertaining the assessee's appeal against charging of interest Under Section 139(8) & 215 in order passed Under Section 154, when the assessee had not challenged the enhancement of income which has made assessee liable to pay interest.2. It would be pertinent to mention that the assessee is a partner in the firm M/s. Kailash Nath ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surinder Singh, J.1. This judgment shall answer the points of reference and dispose of the appeals filed by the revenue under Section 27-A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, in short 'the Act'.2. The facts giving rise to the reference and appeals aforesaid can be stated thus. There has been 7077 sq. yards land situated at New Delhi, having a multi storeyed house over 5000 sq. yards called 'Himalya House' and 2077 sq. yards land was located behind the said house having old built up structure and a vacant land, 1/3rd thereof i.e. 692 square yards fell in the share of the respondent-assessee. It was in the occupation of family members of HUF i.e. the respondent-assessee and the built up structure was partly rented out to one Shri Jagdish Mitra. It was having survey Mark No. 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.3. The respondent-assessee filed the return for 1987-88 on 3-2-1988 with respect to his property which also included above mentioned property. Its assessment was made under Section 16(1) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
T. Ramabhadran, J.C. (1) This is an appeal under Section 39 (1) (vi) of the Indian Arbitration Act. It arises under the following circumstances:--On 30-6-1945 A. D., the erstwhile Darbar of Sirmur State granted a monopoly in favour of Professor Harcharan Das in respect of cultivation and collection of medicinal herbs within Sirmur State, to enable him to manufacture drugs therefrom, and dispose of the same, either within the State, Or by export outside the State. The monopoly rights were to hold good for a period of 20 years, subject to the condition that the Professor floated a Private Limited Company with a capital of Rs. 10,00,000/- after obtaining the necessary permission from the Examiner of the Capital Issues, Government of India. Half the capital was to be raised within Sirmur State and the rest from British India. On 18-9-1945, A. D., a formal agreement was entered into by the Sirmur Darbar, on one side, and Prof. Harcharan Das, on the other, which, inter alia, recorded the mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1954HP52
Choudhry, J.C.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Mandi, dated 28-3-1951, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for Rs. 15,335/14/3.2. The suit was as by a buyer against a seller for recovery of excess of sums advanced over valueof goods supplied, plus Interest. The suit was based on two contracts of even date, 26-5-1947, under one of which the defendant agreed to supply 100 tons of wheat, and under the other 20 tons of rice, to the plaintiff firm at its godown in Chamba before the expiry of the month of June 1947, the qualities of the commodities arid the rates at which they were to be supplied being specified. The plaintiff's case was that the sums advanced to the defendant totalled Rs. 60,000/- and that the defendant supplied goods worth Rs. 43,478/5/9 and repaid Rs. 3,500/- in cash. The suit was therefore for recovery of the balance Rs. 13,021/10/3, plus Rs. 5,130/10/- interest at the contract rate of Rs. 18/12/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2000HP65
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. These two writ petitions (C.W.P. No. 14 of 1999 and C.W.P. No. 35 of 1999) are being disposed of by a common judgment as in both of them, inter alia, same order dated 27-12-1998 (Annexure P-15) of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter called 'the Registrar') has been assailed on the same set of facts and law points. By the said impugned order the Registrar has accepted the appeal filed by respondent No. 6 Jagdish Shankhyan and set aside the award dated 26-10-1998 of the Arbitrator,the District Audit Officer. Co-operative Societies, Mandi District, Mandi, who had allowed the election petitions of the petition-ers in both these writ petitions, namely, Nand Parkash Vohra, Prem Lal and Deepak Sharma and set aside the elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No. 5 the Bilaspur Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Society') held on 25-5-1998, in which respondent No. 6 Jagdish Shankhyan was el...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ShimLC252
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. This case presents a saga of events which demonstrate as to how the public interest came to be totally jeopardized and the manner in which the functionaries of the State Government have been consistently failing to discharge their statutory obligations.2. The petitioner suffered an award passed against him under Section 72 read with Section 73 of the H.P, Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (1968 Act, for short). This award was passed against the petitioner in the year 1995. In 1996 the petitioner challenged this award by filing a statutory appeal under Section 93(1)(h) of the 1968 Act. Since the impugned award in this case was passed by the Registrar, the appeal in terms of Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 93 (supra) was filed before the Government.3. The Additional Secretary in the Department of Cooperation, Government of Himachal Pradesh was seized of this appeal and despite 9 years having elapsed since the filing of the appeal, the appeal has not been disposed of so fa...
Tag this Judgment!