Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1981]129ITR796(AP)
Madhava Rao, J. 1. Referred Case No. 79 of 1976 pertains to the years 1957-58 to 1966-67, while Referred Case No. 121 of 1976 is for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70. Both the cases are in respect of the assessment of the wealth-tax for the properties in the hands of the trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Sahebzadi Anwar Begum Trust, Hyderabad. The questions of law that arise are common to both the cases. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Hyderabad, Bench ' B ', referred the following questions of law for decision :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, even where a single assessment order for each year is passed incorporating all the items of wealth, tax should be charged on those items separately ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the jewellery mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule could be excluded in determining the net wealth assessable in the assessee's hands for each of the valuation dates ?3. Whether, on the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)112CTR(Bom)174
SMT. SUJATA MANOHAR, J. :The assessee is a company, and the assessment year involved is 1973-74, the previous year being the year ending 3rd December, 1972. During the previous year, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, came into force w.e.f. 16th September, 1972. In view of the previous of this Act, the assessee claimed in the asst. yr. 1973-74 gratuity liability of Rs. 1,13,191 as per actuarial certificate. This amount was by way of provision for gratuity for the current year as well as the earlier years, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Out of the sum of Rs. 1,13,191, a sum of Rs. 90,913 was in respect of liability for the earlier years. The ITO disallowed the deduction in respect of liability for the earlier years amounting to Rs. 90,913.2. Being aggrieved by the order of the ITO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the AAC. The AAC accepted the contention of the assessee that the liability was enforceable not only in respect of the accounting year under conside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t January, 2015 % + W.P.(C) No.585/2015 SHATRUHAN LAL .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Mishra and Mr. Amrendra K. Singh, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv for R-1. Mr. Kamal Mehta, Adv for R-3. Mr. Dipak Nag and Ms. Alka Chojar, Advs for R-2 Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC and Ms. Shriya Singh, Adv for UOI. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks reliefs of (i) setting aside of the order dated 17th July, 2014 of the respondent No.2 Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA); (ii) direction to the respondent No.2 IRDA to frame suitable guidelines in the matter; (iii) issuance of a writ declaring Section 113 of the Insurance Act, 1938 as ultra vires the Constitution of India; (iv) issuance of a direction t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)86ITD714(Mum.)
This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXV, Mumbai, dated 6-10-2000 for the assessment year 1997-98.The grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee reads as follows : (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the Assessing Officer's rejection of the Appellant's claim under Section 80RR on the footing that the Appellant's case does not fall within the ken of Section 80RR. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in this connection in holding that the Appellant is not an 'artist' as postulated in Section 80RR. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in this connection in lending a restrictive and narrow meaning to the word 'artist' as being confined to creative arts, and in any event, grossly erred in holding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(10)SC90; RLW2010(1)SC361; 2009(10)SCALE90:2009AIRSCW6999; (2009)13SCC422
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Application of the principles for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the 1939 Act') and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act') is the question involved herein. Before, embarking on the said question we may notice the fact of the matters involved in each case.Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8205/20072. Madan Mohan Singh Saini met with an accident on 3rd September, 1987, when the scooter on which he was riding, collided with a Maruti van, driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the insurer. He was admitted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 8th September, 2006.Appellants herein who are, wife, children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, under Sections 110A and 92A of the Act.By an award dated 13th July, 1992 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- by way of compensation with 12% interest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1996]217ITR120(Mad)
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J. 1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), has been made by the Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A', on the following three questions for the opinion of this Court, namely : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 1,56,098 which represented the accrued liability of the assessee for the payment of gratuity to its employees based on actuarial valuation pertaining to the accounting year ended 31st March, 1974 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had not satisfied the requirements of s. 40A(7)(b) of the IT Act for claiming deduction of the provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,30,245 made in the company's accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1974, over and above the sum of Rs. 1,56,098 which represented the liabili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1980]124ITR251(Delhi); [1981]6TAXMAN387(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. The question as to how far certain funds can be held to constitute 'reserves' has assumed great importance in the context of certain legislations by which the revenue attempted to syphon off, by way of tax, a portion of the profits earned by a business over and above a particular standard of return on the funds invested in the business. 2. To start with, there was the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, which is not relevant for our present purposes. Then there was the Business Profits Tax Act (Act 21 of 1947). By this Act, the taxable profits from a business during a chargeable accounting period were computed and to the extent they exceeded an amount calculated at 6% on the capital employed in the business on the first day of the said period, they were subjected to a tax. For the purposes of the Act, the capital in the case of a company was defined to represent the sum of the amounts of 'its paid up share capital and of its reserves in so far as they have not been allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom251; (1946)48BOMLR893
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This matter came before my learned brother Sir Harilal Kania and myself on November 10, 1944, when we sent the reference back to the Tribunal to ascertain certain additional and necessary facts. We then pointed out that the Tribunal had made an incorrect approach to Rules 2(b) and 3(a) of the schedule to the Income-tax Act to which I will presently refer. The point which arises when analysed resolves itself into an extremely narrow one. By Section 10(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, it is provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18, the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the tax payable thereon shall he computed in accordance with the rules contained in the schedule to the Act. Turning to the schedule it will he found that Rule 1 provides;In the ease of any person who carries on, or at any time in the preceding year carried on life insurance business, the profits and gains of such person from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
Rothstein J. ” I. Introduction [1] On January 1, 1997, The Manitoba Telephone System, a Crown corporation, was privatized and became what is now Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. and MTS Allstream Inc. (for simplicity, all of these entities prior to privatization are referred to as œCrown MTS? and after privatization as œMTS?). As a result of the privatization, approximately 7,000 employees and retirees of Crown MTS and its subsidiaries (the œplan members?) had their assets and pension rights transferred to a new pension plan. The assets included a $43.364 million œactuarial surplus?. [2] An actuarial surplus occurs in a typical defined benefit pension trust fund when the assets in the trust fund exceed the actuarial estimate of the liabilities of the pension plan at the time of the actuarial assessment. The present case requires us to determine how the case-specific legislation and unique features of the pension plan at issue here affect treatment of an actu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD677; 2000(1)ALT444
ORDER1. This revision is filed questioning the order dated 29-4-1999 passed in IA No.767 of 1994 in OS No.570 of 1988 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Salur.2. The defendants in the suit are the petitioners herein. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for a direction against the petitioners/defendants to incorporate the orders of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) dated 6-9-1960 and to fix the ryotwari assessment for the land of an extent of Ac.67.32 cts., mentioned as A schedule by means of mandatory injunction and to restrain the petitioners from interfering withB schedule lands with standing crops. At the stage when the matter stood for filing the written statement the petitioners/ defendants could not file written statement and the Court below awarded costs to the respondents/plaintiffs and posted the matter on 24-7-1990. Since no written statement was filed the Court below passed the ex parte decree on 24-7-1990.3. The petitioners/defendants filed IA No.767 of 1994 fo...
Tag this Judgment!