Supreme Court Online Bulletin (SCOB)
Full List | Back
High Court Division
Judgment Published in SCOB
Search by Case Number :
Search by Key Word(s) :
Serial No. Issue Year Name of the Parties/Case No and Citation Key Word(s) Short Ratio
1. 7 2016 Ahmed Service Ltd Vs Commissioner of Taxes

(A.F.M Abdur Rahman, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 1
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 Section 35(4); method of accounting; computation of income profit and gains of company
Since the DCT concern did not raise any dissatisfaction as to the method of accounting and did not pin point any of the defect in the accounts, the two lower appellate authorities were required to consider the said question and decide the appeals before them in its true perspective. But that has not been done by the two lower appellate authorities and as such the questions as have been formulated in the instant three Income Tax Reference Applications are required to be answered in negative and in favour of the Assessee-applicant.
2. 7 2016 Z. I. Khan Panna Vs Bangladesh & ors

(Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, J) And (Md. Ashraful Kamal, J)

7 SCOB [2016] HCD 7
kb Aike cuj BCe, 2003 (2003 pel 1 ew BCe); Article 46 of the Constitution; indemnity; torture on the victims in the custody of the joint forces; Supremacy of the Constitution; Essence of the rule of law; Compensation
There cannot be any blanket indemnity of the persons accused of perpetration of crimes on the victims in their custody in view of the clear and unequivocal language of Article 46. Precisely speaking, indemnity can be given to the persons concerned for the maintenance or restoration of order in any area meaning thereby in any specific area in Bangladesh as provided by Article 46 of the Constitution. In fact, there is no scope for wholesale indemnity of the members of the joint forces for the maintenance or restoration of order throughout the length and breadth of the country in terms of Article 46 of the Constitution. On this count, the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003 cannot be upheld.
3. 7 2016 State Vs Md. Nurul Amin Baitha & anr

(Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 40
Evidence Act,1872, Section 106; Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, Section 11(ka); Penal Code, 1860, Section 302: Fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and justice delivery system; Wife killing case
Presence of the accused Baitha at the material time is supported by the evidence on record. Thus the death of the deceased was in the special knowledge of the accused Baitha. He knew how she met with death. Ordinarily an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he is placed on trial. But in a case like the present one where the accused has special knowledge of the death of the deceased, under section 106 of the Evidence Act, he is under obligation to explain how the deceased died. If he fails to explain the death of the deceased or if his explanation is found false the irresistible inference would be that none besides him caused the death of the deceased.
4. 7 2016 Md. Bazlur Rahman Vs Shamsun Nahar & ors.

(S. M. Emdadul Hoque, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 61
Family Courts Ordinances, 1985, Section 9(6); The code of civil procedure, 1908, Section 115(1)
It appears that both the courts after proper consideration of the evidence on record rightly opined that since the petitioner himself received the summons so without filing any appeal against the experte judgment and decree he cannot get any relief.
5. 7 2016 Sree Paresh Chandra Pramanik vs Md. Mokbul Hossain & ors

(Borhanuddin, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 64
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, Sub-section 10 of section 96; Succession Act, 1925, Section 28; computing of degrees of kindred; three degrees by consanguinity; Pre-emption Case
Section 28 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides mode of computing of degrees of kindred in the manner set forth in the table of kindred set out in schedule 1. From the table of schedule 1, annexed with the counter affidavit, it is evident that brother-in-law is not a relation within three degrees by consanguinity. Pre-emptee opposite party no.1 being not a relation within three degrees by consanguinity of the donor is not entitled to get protection of Sub-section 10 of section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act.
6. 7 2016 Mst. Anjuara Khanam @ Anju Vs State

(M. Moazzam Husain, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 67
Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Damon Ain, 2000; Section 18 and 27; Power of tribunal to entertain naraji;
The Tribunal has been clothed with power wide enough to cover all the power of a Magistrate and of the Sessions judge rolled together in ignoring investigation-report with concomitant power to entertain naraji and sending back the case for further investigation or, (where practicable) judicial inquiry. Sub-section (1) and (1Ga) of section 27 read with section 18 goes to show that the Tribunal is further equipped with power more robust than that of an ordinary criminal court in taking cognizance absolutely on its own satisfaction, albeit by assigning reason, gathered from any materials, irrespective of naraji, or information received in disregard of the final report submitted by police or the person authorized by the Government in this behalf. The enormously unqualified power of the Tribunal to take cognizance of offences on its own satisfaction in total disregard of everything means by necessary implication that the Tribunal enjoys power to take into consideration anything including the naraji-petition for its satisfaction without any formality attached to it in general law.
7. 7 2016 State & ors Vs Julhash & ors

(Soumendra Sarker, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 84
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; Section 164; Confessional Statement;
The spirit of law on confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the confessional statement of a accused is such that a confession is a direct piece of evidence which is substantial and such statement of any accused can be relied upon for the purpose of conviction and no further corroboration is necessary if it relates to the confessing accused himself; provided it is voluntary and also free. A free and voluntary confession under the purview of this section deserves highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from highest sense of guilt. If the court believes that the confession is voluntary and free, there is no legal embargo on the court for ordering conviction. If it is found that the Magistrate appears to have recorded his satisfaction as to the voluntariness and spontaneous nature of the confession of the accused, in that case; such confession cannot be vitiated from illegality and this type of confession alone is enough to convict the confessing accused.
8. 7 2016 Youngone Synthetic Ind. Ltd & anr Vs Commissioner of Taxes

(Sheikh Hassan Arif, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 98
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 Section 28, 29; Wears and tears of assets; depreciation; written down value
In calculating the total income in a concerned assessment year, the wears and tears of assets, which have been used for the purpose of the business and to earn revenue, have to be taken into consideration. From the context of the said concept, the relevant provisions have been incorporated in our statute book, namely Income Tax Ordinance, 1984. Thus, while Section 28 of the said Ordinance classifies the income from business and profession, Section 29 provides for the allowances to be deducted from the said income while calculating the same for the purpose of assessment. Clause(VIII) of sub-section (1) of Section 29 provides that the depreciation of building, machinery, plan or furniture etc. of the concerned assessee, which have been used for the purposes of business or profession, shall be allowed as admissible under the Third Schedule to the said Ordinance. Again, Paragraph-2 of the said Third Schedule, in particular sub-paragraph (1) of the same, provides that in computing the profits and gains from the business or profession, an allowance for depreciation shall be made in the manner provided hereinafter. This Paragraph 2 is followed by a Table under Paragraph 3 prescribing fixed rates of depreciations to be allowed on the written down value of any particular assets used in the business.
9. 7 2016 State & anr Vs Aynal Haque & anr

(Bhabani Prashad Singha, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 106
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, Section 11(ka); Value of circumstantial evidence in a wife killing case
In a wife killing case, there could be no eye-witness of the occurrence, apart from the inmates of the house who may refuse to tell the truth, the neighbors may not also come forward to depose. The prosecution is, therefore, necessarily to rely on circumstantial evidence.
10. 7 2016 Orascom Telecom Bangladesh Ltd Vs. BTRC & ors

(Md. Ashraful Kamal, J)

7 SCOB [2016] HCD 115
Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001, Section 55(3); spectrum assignment fee; VAT Act, 1991, Section 2, 3 (N), and 5:
The issue of applicability of VAT and/or liability of the petitioner company to pay the VAT has no relation whatsoever with regard to the payment of license renewal fee and spectrum assignment fee. The petitioner company is bound to pay the net amount of the license renewal fee fixed by BTRC, without any kind of deduction.
11. 7 2016 Md. Jahangir Alam & ors Vs D.C Munshiganj & ors

(Mohammad Ullah, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 130
Protection and Conservation of Fish Act, 1950, Section 5(2)(b) read with section 5A; Mobile Court Ain, 2009; Protection and Conservation of Fish Rules, 1985; Article 40 and 42 of the Constitution
It appears that the powers conferred under section 5(2)(b) read with section 5A on an Executive Magistrate extend to conviction and sentence and also to confiscation of the article(s) or thing(s) used in the commission of the offence. Besides, the Act or the Rules does not speak of putting the factories under sealed lock and key. Therefore in putting the factories under sealed lock and key the Executive Magistrate has clearly exceeded the authority conferred upon him which has not empowered him to do so under the Act, the Ain and the Rules. The orders of sealing the factories of the petitioners, by the Executive Magistrate is also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 40 and 42 of the constitution with regard to their lawful business.
12. 7 2016 Mainuddin Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors

(Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar, J)

7 SCOB [2016] HCD 134
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, Section 144B; What to be fulfilled to direct excision of a fraudulent entry; record-of-rights,
During conducting the revisional survey under Section 144 of the SAT Act, till final record-of-rights are published, no suit lies in any civil Court challenging any action or Order of the Settlement Officer as provided in Section 144B of the SAT Act and, thus, the only option available for respondent no. 12 was to take recourse to the provision of Rule 42A of the Tenancy Rules.
13. 7 2016 Asoke Das Gupta Vs Ministry of Finance & ors

(Kashefa Hussain, J)



7 SCOB [2016] HCD 148
Gift Tax Act, 1990, Section 4(ja); Income Tax Ordinance, 1984, Section 53M;
Section 53M Explanation 1 is contrary to the rest of the provisions of the ITO, 1984, being against the sprit and intent of the Ordinance and also contrary to the Section 4 of Gift Tax Act, 1990. Therefore the impugned collection of advance tax against transfer of shares to the daughter of the petitioner is unlawful and without lawful authority.
14. 7 2016 Sonali Bank Vs. Md. Abu Baker Sarker

(S.M. Mozibur Rahman, J)

7 SCOB [2016] HCD 156
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, Section 50;
The court has no power to exempt the defendant respondent from the liability of paying up interest however high rate it may be ... since the financial institution bank itself preserves the exclusive right to exempt any-body from payment of interest of loan they sanctioned.
15. 7 2016 Afangir @ Kalu Vs. The State

(Md. Farid Ahmed Shibli, J)

7 SCOB [2016] HCD 161
Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Section 4/6
Mere knowledge of an accused or his equivocal disclosure about existence of bomb-making powders during his police custody shall not expose him to any criminal liability of possessing or controlling that illegal substance.
This Site is Visited :