Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1996]219ITR684(Mad)
The Court1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the entire gratuity provision of Rs. 24,05,655 should be allowed as a deduction while computing the total income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?' 2. The assessee is a textile mill. For the asst. yr. 1974-75 the accounting year ended on 31st March, 1974. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, had come into force in September, 1972. But the assessee made no provision in its accounts for the financial year ended 31st March, 1973, relevant to the asst. yr. 1973-74. The assessee thereafter for the financial year ended 31st March, 1974, relevant to the asst. yr. 1974-75, made a provision for gratuity for its workers in its acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972AP276
ORDER1. The petitioners who are thirty three in number have filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining the respondents from taking up the construction of any channel or water course or otherwise disturbing the existing channel from the village tank called Pedda Cheruvu situate between Kansanapalli and Seri Mallareddipalli, in Andole Taluk, Medak District.2. The petitioners state that they are all pattadars of different lands varying in extents from 4-00 guntas to Ac. 2-12 guntas situate in the village of Kansanapalli, that all the petitioners were cultivating the said lands by taking water from the tank called Pedda Cheruvu for over several decades, that water was being carried to their fields from the said channel through the water course or channel, that the said source is the only source of water to the said lands, that the revenue authorities are the Executive Engineer, public Works Departments, took u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1980)15CTR(All)358; [1980]124ITR58(All); [1980]4TAXMAN199(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ,the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 8,02,402 or any other sum as a deduction in the computation of its business income on the ground that a liability had accrued on the part of the assessee to provide for the payment of gratuity to its employees under the Sugar Industry Workmen Gratuity Scheme '2. The assessment year involved in the present reference is 1962-63, for which the previous year ended on 30th September, 1961. In the relevant period, the company owned two sugar mills, one at Pilibhit and the other at Kashipur. It claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 25,000 in the Kashipur unit, and a sum of Rs. 45,000 for the Pilibhit unit under the head ' Gratuity '. The ITO, on the view that the amounts claimed were unascertained liabilities, allowed an amount of only Rs. 8,550 which has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1171; [1963]33CompCas513(SC); [1963]Supp2SCR971
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Life Insurance Tribunal, Nagpur, dated December 12, 1952, by which a dispute about compensation payable to the National Insurance Company by the Life Insurance Corporation on the taking over of the life business of the former was decided. The National Insurance Company is the appellant and the Life Insurance Corporation is the respondent. Another appeal was filed by the Life Insurance Corporation against the same order but was not pressed at the hearing. 2. The National Insurance Company carried on life insurance business in addition to other insurance business and was what the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), describes as a 'composite insurer.' The Life Insurance Corporation Act was passed in 1956 to nationalise the life insurance business of all insurers by transferring all such business to a Corporation established for the purpose. This Corporation is the well-known Life Insurance Corporation. Under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)91CTR(Bom)192; [1990]186ITR463(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is an application under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The applicant making the reference is the Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay. The accountable person is the Official Trustee, Maharashtra State, Bombay. The questions which are referred to us relate to the estate of the deceased, Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronet, who died on or about September 24, 1968. The questions relate to the interest which the deceased baronet had in the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Fund which was created initially under the Baronetcy Act 20 of 1860, which Act was subsequently replaced by Act 10 of 1915. Under these Acts, certain promissory notes of the Government of India producing an annual income of Rs. 1 lakh and a Mansion House and hereditaments called Mazegaon Castle were settled in perpetuity to support the title and dignity of a baronet under the said Act. Under the said Act, the income from these properties and the use of the same was conferred on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1987)IILLJ83AP
Raghuvir, J.1. Chakali Sangaiah was a farm servant. He was a resident of Devi village in Kamareddy taluk of Medak District. He died on March 10, 1978 in a motor accident. The accident occurred while Sangaiah was driving a bullock-cart at 5 Kms. stone on Kamareddy-Yellareddy highway. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vehicle APZ : 2727 dashed against the cart. The cart turned turtle and broke into pieces. One of the bulls dies. Sangaiah died at the spot. 2. The dependents of the deceased - mother, spouse and son - the three claimed Rs. 50,000/- before the Motor Accidents Tribunal. In the inquiry it was disclosed Sangaiah was 24 years of age at his death. He was paid Rs. 100/- salary for a month by his employer. On the above evidence the Tribunal held the deceased would have lived upto 65 years. The dependency of the three claimants on that basis was determined at Rs. 600/- per annum. Compensation of Rs. 24,000/- was awarded to them. Rs. 2,000/- was awarded to the spous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1986]160ITR716(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applied to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Surtax Act'), by section 18 thereof. The assessee is the National Rayon Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The years of assessment with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the relevant previous years being calendar years ended on December 31, 1965, and December 31, 1966, respectively. In the balance-sheet of the company for the said two previous years, there was an item of gratuity reserve of Rs. 17 lakhs and and an item of debenture redemption reserve of Rs. 79 lakhs. We are not quite sure about the correctness of the figure, particularly regarding the debenture redemption reserve, but we are not concerned with whether the said figures are correct. From the balance-sheet, copies whereof have been tendered in the court and by consent taken on reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1987AP127
Raghuvir, J.1. Chakali Sangaiah was a farm servant. He was a resident of Devi village in Kamareddy taluk of Medak District. He died on March 19, 1978 in a Motor accident. The accident occurred while Sangaiah was driving a bullock-cart at 5 Kms. stone on Kamareddy-Yellareddy highway. The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vehicle APZ 2727 dashed against the cart. The cart turned turtle and broke into pieces. One of the bulls died. Sangaiah died at the spot.2. The dependants of the deceased-mother, spouse and son - the three claimed Rs. 50,000/- before the Motor Accidents Tribunal. In the inquiry it was disclosed Sangaiah was 24 years of age at his death. He was paid Rs. 100/- salary for a month by his employer. On the above evidence the Tribunal held that deceased would have lived up to 65 years. The dependency of the three claimants on that basis was determined at Rs. 600/- per annum. Compensation of Rs. 24,000/- was awarded to them. Rs. 2,000/- was awarded to the spouse of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)3GLR2578
S.K. Keshote, J.1. As all these three petitions are identical in nature, the same are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The respondent No. 2, as stated by its Counsel, has been wound up. The Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 states that the Official Liquidator is necessary party to this proceedings. I have examined this matter and I am of considered opinion that ultimately in case the claims of the petitioners for gratuity is accepted, the liability of the payment of the same is of State of Gujarat and respondent No. 2 jointly and severally. However, that amount has to be deducted by the State Government from the compensation to be paid to respondent No. 3, i.e., the amount found payable to the owner of the closed textile which has been nationalised under the provisions of the Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1986). As the State Government is a party here, I do not consider i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR306]; ILR2005KAR5110; (2006)IILLJ151Kant
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this appeal, the appellants have called in question the correctness of the order dated 29th August 2001 made in W.P.Nos. 25578-79/2000 by the learned Single Judge wherein he has confirmed the award dated 9th May 2000 made in Complaint No. 1 /1999 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').2. The facts in brief are as follows:The appellants 1 and 2 are the Private Limited Companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. They have set up their factory at Gokul Road, Hubli. It is the case of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the workmen-Union') that 37 employees working in the establishment of the appellants went on strike on 22nd February 1999 which was prohibited by the Government by means of its Order dated 15th May 1999. Thereafter, the Union of India referred the dispute between the workmen-Union and the appellants to the Tribunal. During the pendency of the reference, the workmen-Union made ...
Tag this Judgment!