.....(2)712976266, (3)713347671, (4)713348010, together with the benefits accruing there from with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 2. the brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the writ petition, are as follows:- 2.1. the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased gomathi gayathri had taken place in the year 1994 and out of the wedlock, they had a son by name sumithra nandhan hari, who is now aged about 20 years and studying b.tech. the petitioner had taken four life insurance policies from the life insurance corporation of india (in short lic ) at chennai, in the name of his wife mrs. gomathi gayathri, during the period from 1996 to 2001. the particulars of the policies are as under:- s.no.policy numberdate of commencementpremiumsum assureddate of maturity1.71231761414-09-1996rs. 295/-quarterlyrs. 1,00,000/-14-09-20212.71297626610-04-1999rs. 426/-halfyearlyrs. 70,000/-10-04-20283.71334767127-08-2001rs. 11497/-yearlyrs. 5,47,910/-rs. 1,70,000/-27-08-20184.71334801028-11-2001rs. 290/- quarterlyrs. 70,000/-28-11-2021 2.2. the petitioner, his wife and his son had been living happily at door no. 4, balaji nagar main road extension, adambakkam, chennai. while so,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the income tax rules the deduction under section 33ab of the act is to be allowed while computing the income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller which forms the composite income from sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller and the apportionment in terms of rule 8 of the income tax rules between agricultural income and non-agricultural income should be made after the said deduction is allowed in the computation of composite income?. briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:- the assessee is a company engaged inter alia, in the business of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea in india and abroad. the assessee claimed a deduction at the rate of 20% on the composite income of rs.25,54,855/-. but the assessing officer by his order dated 27th march, 2003 passed under section 143 (3) of the act held that any deduction under section 33ab has to be allowed only from the non-agricultural component of the composite income determined under rule 8 of the income tax rules, 1962. to be precise the assessing officer held as follows:- “the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 33ab on the basis of composite income before.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for hearing. the following substantial questions of law have been proposed by the revenue for consideration in the instant appeal:i)whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned income tax appellate tribunal “b” bench, kolkata was justified in quashing the order passed by the commissioner of income tax (central – i) kolkata under section 263 of the income tax act without appreciating the ratio of the judgement delivered by the delhi high court in the case of commissioner of income tax – versus hari machine ltd.reported in (2009) 311 itr285(del.)?. ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned income tax appellate tribunal “b” bench, kolkata erred in law in holding the loss of an amount of rs.919.52 lakhs on account of transfer of investment division of the assessee could not be adjusted in section 115j.of the act although this loss is booked in the profit and loss account ?. iii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned income tax appellate tribunal “b” bench, kolkata is perverse, bad in law ?. briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case are as.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....now claiming their share was the land in respect whereof there was a dispute of ownership and it was not for the high court to inquire into this factual aspect in writ jurisdiction. the appellants filed letters patent appeal no.128 of 2011 against the aforesaid order of the learned single judge. this appeal has been dismissed by the division bench vide its orders february 1, 2011. the division bench has taken note of order dated january 27, 1986 passed by this court in slp (c) no.9594/1985 and filing of the suit by the appellants thereof which was withdrawn. on that basis, it is held that a second writ petition could not have been filed when on earlier occasion the lis in-question was adjudicated. it has, thus, brushed aside the submissions of the appellants that when a revision petition was filed by one of the respondents, the appellants felt that they could also file a revision petition. it is this order which is in appeal before us. after going through the orders and hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the high court does not call for any interference. the narration of facts disclosed above unambiguously reveals that in the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....terms of reference at the present stage: was the industrial dispute raised by each of the workmen on april 22, 1997 so delayed in the context of the facts that no reference for adjudication ought to have been made thereon?.11. the employer contends that since the scope of section 10 of the said act is distinct from the manner in which section 33 of the act operates, there was no impediment to an industrial dispute against the disciplinary order being raised by each of the workmen within reasonable time of the relevant order of dismissal being passed in the year 1981. the employer insists that the delay in the raising of the industrial dispute should be counted from the date of the orders and such delay of about 16 years was per se inexcusable without looking into any other aspect of the matter. the employer complains that the relevant documents are no longer available and it will not be able to justify its action by producing relevant witnesses in course of the impugned reference. the substance of the employer’s grievance is that such matters ought to have been taken into consideration by the relevant government while making the reference; and, in it being evident that such.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....view the circumstances thereof. section 36 cr.p.c does not fetter the jurisdiction of the state police chief to pass such an order based on his satisfaction. it is the satisfaction of the state police chief, in the light of the facts of a given case, that would be determinative of the appointment to be made in which situation the limits of jurisdiction will not act as fetter or come in the way of exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed. such an appointment would not be hedged by the limitations imposed by section 36 cr.p.c. section 18 of the state police act, on the other hand, does not confer any such power and merely recognises the state police chief as the head of the police force in the state. in the instant case the high court, in our considered view, was not right in reading the constraints imposed by section 36 of the cr.p.c. on the powers of the state police chief to appoint a suitable and competent officer to investigate a case irrespective of the limits of local jurisdiction of such officer, if such a course of action is required. this is not to say that the power of the state police chief would not be amenable to the judicial process; it can.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by one common judgment. since slp (c) nos. 21712-21717 of 2009 was taken as the lead case, for understanding the nature of lis that is involved, the factual narration can be addressed from the said appeal. in these appeals, we are concerned with assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. obviously, assessment in respect of these assessment years was to be made under the said act. the assessee had filed quarterly returns in respect of the aforesaid assessment years. in terms of section 11(3) of the act, time-limit for completing the assessment provided therein is three years from the end of the year. accordingly, assessments were to be made by 30th april, 2004 for the assessment year 2000-01, 30th april, 2005 for the assessment year 2001-02, 30th april, 2006 for the assessment year 2002-03 and 30th april, 2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. it is an admitted case that no assessment was made in respect of any of these assessment years by the aforesaid stipulated dates. the assessing officer, however, sent notices to the respondent- assessee in form st-xiv for the aforesaid assessment years, i.e., after the expiry of three years. the assessee took an objection that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....from various persons, proof of which had been adduced before the firs.appellate authority i.e.the cit(a) who had on a proper appreciation of the facts de1eted the addition?. ii) whether the order of the learned tribunal giving a complete gobye to the findings of the cit(a) and thereafter confirming the order of the assessing officer was perverse?. briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:- the assessee an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 indicating therein a total income of rs.42,760/-, which was processed u/s.143(1)(a).upon examining the return filed for the assessment year 1995-96 the assessing officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ao’) observed that the closing stock appearing in the trading and profit and loss account for the year ended on 31st march 1995 was rs.85,960/- whereas the opening stock appearing in the trading and profit and loss account for the year ended on 31st march 1996 was rs.1,35,960/-. hence there was a difference of rs.50,000/-. similarly, the closing capital in the balance-sheet as at 31st march 1995 was rs.49,550/- and the opening capital according to the balance-sheet as at.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....order dated 18th december, 2006 a division bench of this court admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal erred in law in upholding the action of reassessment, when admittedly the approval accorded by the concerned authority for such reopening was given in a mechanical manner which was itself without jurisdiction and bad in law?. ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when the jurisdictional aspect in according the approval for reopening was absent, the action of the learned tribunal in upholding such approval and thereafter in further upholding the assessment which was beyond four years is perverse?. briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:the assessee an individual is engaged in the business of trading in various goods under the name and style of ujjwal steel udyog which is a proprietorship concern. along with the return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 the assessee enclosed the particulars of accounts relating to earlier years claiming that there was no taxable income with respect to those years.the assessing.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....counsel for the parties and do it suo motu and an application either filed by the public prosecutor or by the informant is only to bring the said facts to his notice and in any case, that would not invalidate the order.8. the controversy as raised rests on two aspects. the first aspect that has emanated for consideration is whether without evidence being adduced another charge could be added. in this context, we may usefully refer to section 216 crpc which reads as follows:- “216. court may alter charge.— (1) any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) if the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) if the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT