Court : US Supreme Court
Tennessee v. Lane - 02-1667 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 TENNESSEE V. LANE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TENNESSEE v. LANE et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 021667. Argued January 13, 2004Decided May 17, 2004 Respondent paraplegics filed this action for damages and equitable relief, alleging that Tennessee and a number of its counties had denied them physical access to that States courts in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which provides: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation or denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, 42 U. S. C. 12132. After the District Court denied the States motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, the Sixth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356 . This Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Illinois v. Krull - 480 U.S. 340 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) Illinois v. Krull No. 85-608 Argued November 5, 1986 Decided March 9, 1987 480 U.S. 340 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus An Illinois statute, as it existed in 1981, required licensed motor vehicle and vehicular parts sellers to permit state officials to inspect certain required records. In 1981, pursuant to the statute, a police detective entered respondents' automobile wrecking yard and asked to see records of vehicle purchases. He was told that the records could not be located, but was given a list of approximately five purchases. After receiving permission to look at the cars in the yard, he ascertained that three were stolen and that a fourth had had its identification number removed. He then seized the cars, and respondents were arrested and charged with various crimes. The state trial court granted respondents' motion to suppress the evidence seized fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1987]163ITR529(MP)
J.S. Verma, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue to decide the following question of law, viz. :--'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law, in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowing the provision for gratuity at Rs. 1,34,000 as an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts are these : The assessee carries on the business of manufacture of pipes, etc. For the assessment year 1971-72, for which the period of accounting ended on December 31, 1970, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,34,000 on account of provision for gratuity to its employees on the basis of an award of the Industrial Court made on August 5, 1970. This amount was determined and duly certified by an actuary as the amount liable to be paid by the assessee as gratuity as on December 31, 1970, i.e., up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McCleskey v. Kemp - 481 U.S. 279 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) McCleskey v. Kemp No. 84-6811 Argued October 15, 1986 Decided April 22, 1987 481 U.S. 279 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In 1978, petitioner, a black man, was convicted in a Georgia trial court of armed robbery and murder, arising from the killing of a white police officer during the robbery of a store. Pursuant to Georgia statutes, the jury at the penalty hearing considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of petitioner's conduct, and recommended the death penalty on the murder charge. The trial court followed the recommendation, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief in state courts, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in Federal District Court. His petition included a claim that the Georgia capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discrimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad145; (1938)1MLJ11
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is a life Insurance Company, carrying on business at Masulipatam, having been incorporated in the year 1925. Under the provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Life Assurance Companies Act, 1912, a life assurance company is required once in every five years, or at such shorter intervals as may be prescribed by the instrument constituting the company or by its regulations or bye-laws, to cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into its financial condition, including a valuation of its liabilities. This company decided that the valuation should take place every four years. The first valuation was made in December, 1930, and was for the period ended 31st December, 1929. The next valuation took place in December, 1934, and this was for the four years ended 31st December, 1933. Under Section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the principal officer of every company shall prepare, and, on or before the 15th day of June in each yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1994]209ITR675(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the market value of unquoted shares should be valued only in accordance with Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for gratuity made by the company was deductible from the assets of the company for computing market value of unquoted shares of the company in accordance with Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. It is not in dispute that the first question is concluded by the decision of this court in CWT v. India Exchange Traders' Association : [1992]197ITR356(Cal) . Accordingly, the first question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee and in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)21ITD219(Mum.)
1. These five appeals are by the assessee against the orders of the AAC. They all relate to the assessment year 1980-81. In all these appeals the point involved is about the claim of exemption under Section 5(1)(xxiii) read with Section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').2. All these trusts have shares in Indian companies and filed their returns as specific trust declaring the net wealth after deducting the values of interest of life beneficiaries and reversionary beneficiaries. The WTO, however, assessed these trusts as discretionary trusts and levied the tax at maximum rate on the entire net wealth without allowing exemption under Section 5(1)(xxiii). The AAC held that these trusts are specific trusts and directed the WTO to assess them on the net wealth after reducing therefrom the values of interest of life beneficiaries and reversionary beneficiaries. He, however, did not allow the deduction under Section 5(1)(xxiii) in some cases and in other cases he did not consider...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]244ITR780(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee--The South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Limited, Tiruchirappalli, in the assessment year 1972-73 made provision of Rs. 1,80,255 towards payment of gratuity to employees. Subsequently, on December 1, 1973, the entire undertaking of the assessee was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Private Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1973.2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Trichy, has disallowed the provision so made on the ground of non-complying with the provisions adumbrated under Section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961)-for short 'LT. Act').3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, Madras, also agreed with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D', Madras (for short 'the Tribunal'), the assessee argued that Section 40A(7) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1975, with retrospective ef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1981]127ITR528(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the old question, viz., what is information, is presented for our consideration in the light of the facts of this case. We were tempted to embark upon the controversy whether the decision of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution even though the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, composed of judges of a lesser number, has expressly, after consideration, doubted the view of the larger Bench. In order to appreciate the questions we may, however, refer to certain facts.2. It appears that Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961, was amended by Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1970, which received the assent of the President of India on the 14th of May, 1970 (incidentally there is a mistake of date in the order of the Tribunal where it is stated that the said Act received the assent of the President on the 4th of May, 1970 ; that mistake, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A. - 511 U.S. 164 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER, N. A. v. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, N. A., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 92-854. Argued November 30, 1993-Decided April 19, 1994 As this Court has interpreted it, 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 imposes private civil liability on those who commit a manipulative or deceptive act in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Following a public building authority's default on certain bonds secured by landowner assessment liens, respondents, as purchasers of the bonds, filed suit against the authority, the bonds' underwriters, the developer of the land in question, and petitioner bank, as the indenture trustee for the bond issues. Respondents alleged that the first three defendants had violated 10(b) in connection with the sale of the bonds, and that petitio...
Tag this Judgment!