Search Options

Judgment Search By Title

Displaying 8361-8373 of 8373 results.
Union Capital Limited Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, 2014, 43 CLC (HCD)

The  Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. XXXVI of 1984); Section 17

It has been provided in section 17 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1984 that any deemed income accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to any tax payer in Bangladesh during a year, shall be included in the total income of the assessee. But whether a deemed income, from a bad debt of a financial institution, could be treated as accrued to it is a question to be decided by this court in this matter. A bad debt becomes irrecoverable, so long it is recovered by way of legal process and therefore a debt when becomes irrecoverable at any point of time, any deemed interest income from that irrecoverable source, meaning non-existent source, cannot be treated as has come within the purview of section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Ordinance..........(17) 


Shah Tazul Islam Rumel (Md.) Vs. Bangladesh, Represented By the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)


State Vs. Md. Golam Rabbani, 2016, 45 CLC (HCD)

Evidence Act (1 of 1872); Section 106

Section 106 of the Evidence Act has attribute the liability of proving the facts on the accused when the same is especially within his knowledge. In this case; we have noticed that the condemned-prisoner Golam Rabbani and his wife the deceased Shirina Khatun while living in their residence the wife Shirina Khatun because of the poisonous reaction of insecticide poison in her body resulted her death, so the onus heavily and entirely lies on the husband as the fact is especially within the knowledge of the husband Golam Rabbani. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is very much clear in the said nature of fact………….(37) 


Mrs. June Ferguson & others Vs. Ameenur Rasheed Chaudhury and others, 1972, 1 CLC (HCD)


Abdul Hamid Chowdhury (Iqbal) and Others Vs. Artha Rin Adalat and Others, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)

An Ex-Parte Decree— How the Court Passed—

The ex-parte decree passed upon the admitted facts has been absolutely vitiated by perversity. In this case the Adalat exceeded it's jurisdiction and acted in such a manner in deciding the issue that certainly added to have been passed without jurisdiction leading to perversity. It is a case of a kind where the rigidity of the Rule of the Appellate Division and this Division that no writ lies against the judgment and decree of the Artha Rin Adalat shall not apply………………..(6) 


Tariqul Islam Vs. Bangladesh and Others, 2016, 45 CLC (HCD)


RNR GNG Refuelling and Filling Station Limited Vs. General Manager, Comilla Palli Bidyut Samittee-1 and Others, 2016, 45 CLC (HCD)


Hazi Abdul Late Vs. Abu Naseruddin and Others, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)


Motiur Rahman and others Vs. Siddika Begum and Others, 2014, 43 CLC (HCD)

Code of Civil Procedure (v of 1908); Order XXXIX, rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151,

Exclusive Posses­sion— The defendant No. 1 has exclusive posses­sion over the suit land and prima facie shows that she has mutated her name separately and paying regular rent to the government. Before disposal of the partition suit finally, it is suffi­cient to prove that the defendant No. 1 has prima facie arguable case for granting tempo­rary injunction in her favour……......(33) 


Sanjay Kumar Biswas Vs. State, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)


A.H. Azam Khan Vs. Bangladesh and Ors, 2016, 45 CLC (HCD)


 


Esrarul Huq Chowdhury Vs. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and Others, 2015, 44 CLC (HCD)


Khulna Printing and Packaging Limited Vs. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, 2016, 45 CLC (HCD)

Principle of Natural Justice—

Since no punishment could be imposed without adhering to the principle of audi alteram partem, the principle of natural justice requiring the concerned authority to issue show cause notice and to accord hearing should be read therein even though there was no such specific requirement in the said provision…………(12)

Determination of Liability—

Though the Commissioner has power to issue an order for stoppage of export/import of a defaulter under section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, which is a similar provision like section 56 of the VAT Act, 1991, the preconditions for issuance of any such order under section 202 is the determination of liability of the person upon whom such order will be passed. But in the present case, no such determination has been done through issuance of either show cause or demand, notice upon the petitioner for realization of any duties or taxes under the Customs Act, 1969. The only demand on the petitioner for realization of certain amount of money was done before 30-4-2015, on which day the Commissioner of Customs, vide adjudication order No. 2 of 2015 dated 30-4-2015, imposed a certain amount of penalty upon the petitioner (See annexure CC to the supplementary-affidavit of the petitioner dated 3-1-2016. However, as against that adjudication order, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, and upon such appeal, the Tribunal has in the meantime passed an ad interim order dated 14-5-2015 (see Annexure-CC 1 to the supplementary-affidavit of the petitioner dated 3-1-2016).

Since the said appeal of the petitioner is still pending before the Tribunal, and, it appears that, the entire present dispute has been triggered-off from the noncompliance of the said ad-interim order dated 4-5-2015 by the concerned customs officials, any other demand or adjudication as regards any public dues of the petitioner has not been seen……….(15)