Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1984)39CTR(Cal)220,[1984]147ITR163(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-V, Calcutta, the following two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, to this court.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the claim of Rs. 19,71,126 for deduction on account of liability for payment of gratuity based on actuarial valuation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to agitate in the quantum appeal the ground in respect of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer levying interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. This case relates to the assessment year 1974-75 for which the accounting period is the year ended 31st March, 1974.3. The first question relates to the deduction of gratuity liability made on actuarial basis. The ITO did not all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)21ITD272(Mum.)
1. As common points are involved in both, these appeals by the revenue, they are heard together and disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is an individual. The relevant valuation dates are 31-10-1978 (Samvat year 2035) for the assessment year 1979-80 and 21-10-1979 (Samvat year 2036) for the assessment year 1980-81.3. The first common controversy is regarding the inclusion of the assessee's credit balance in CDS account of Rs. 82,762 in the assessment year 1979-80 and of Rs. 1,03,142 in the assessment year 1980-81. The Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the said amounts following the Tribunal Delhi Bench decision in WTO v. S.D. Nargolwala [1983] 5 ITD 690. The Tribunal, Special Bench, Bombay has since held in Smt. Sushilaben A. Mafatlal v. WTO [1986] 18 ITD 189 that the credit balance in CDS account is includible in the assessee's net wealth.Following the said decision, we vacate the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore those of the WTO for both the years.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1979]116ITR937(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The assessee claimed an allowance on account of liability for gratuity payable to workmen. It was claimed that this was a statutory liability under Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with the Sugar Industries Workmen Gratuity Scheme. This claim was made before the ITO on account of the gratuity payable for the previous year and earlier years in terms of the Wage Board Award. The ITO repelled the claim because no details or materials were furnished by the company.In appeal this plea was not specifically urged before the AAC. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the assessee desired to raise this plea. It filed the actuarial valuation report dated February 25, 1973, and on that basis claimed an amount of Rs. 72,399 as deductible. The Tribunal, however, did not permit the assessee to raise this ground. It held that before the ITO claim was made on a vague basis and not on the basis of any actuarial report. Permitting this ground would mean examination o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
City of Los Angeles v. Manhart - 435 U.S. 702 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court City of Los Angeles v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978) City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart No. 76-1810 Argued January 18, 1978 Decided April 25, 1978 435 U.S. 702 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus This suit was filed as a class action on behalf of present or former female employees of petitioner Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, alleging that the Department's requirement that female employees make larger contributions to its pension fund than male employees violated 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual because of such individual's sex. The Department's pension plan was based on mortality tables and its own experience showing that female employees had greater longevity than male employees, and that the cost of a pens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]121ITR727(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of General Assurance Society Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, in the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant previous years being the one ended on the 31st December, 1956. The facts found and/or admitted in these proceedings are as follows : Till 1956, the assessee carried on business as acomposite insurer, and life insurance was part of its business. Under theLife Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1956, all life insurance business vested in the Central Government on the 19th January, 1956, pending nationalisation thereof. Such business was ultimately nationalised under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, on the appointed date, i.e., the 1st September, 1956. As a result, the life insurance business carried on by the assessee was taken over with effect from the said date and under Section 16 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act the assessee was paid a compensation of Rs. 5,95,764.2. In the assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1984]147ITR185(MP)
Shukla, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Facts as stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal giving rise to the question of law referred by it are as follows. Assessee is a public limited company. Relevant assessment year is 19 73-74 for which the accounting year ended on 31st March, 1973. The assessee-company had entered into agreements with the workers' union for payment of gratuity by the 31st March, 1972. Company's practice was to account for gratuity on cash basis as and when paid. The company had made a provision in its books of account for payment of gratuity to its employees to the extent of Rs. 20,00,000 during the relevant accounting year. With the coming into force of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, w.e.f. 16th September, 1972, a statutory liability was created on the company to pay gratuity to its employees as per the provisions of the said Act. The assessee-company, therefore, arranged for actuarial determination of its liability ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]115ITR293(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. In this rule, the petitioner L. Madanlal (Aluminium) Pvt. Ltd. has challenged the legality of a notice dated November 14, 1975, issued by the ITO under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), for the assessment year 1972-73.2. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of aluminium utensils. The petitioner filed its returns of income for the said assessmentyear 1972-73 before the respondent No. 1, the ITO, showing as income of Rs. 2,95,030. The said income was computed by the petitioner after deducting the actuarial or the discounted value of the amount of gratuity payable to its employees on their retirement under the gratuity scheme. The respondent No. 1 by his order dated January 18, 1973, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, though assessed the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 3,09,690, yet he accepted the deduction of the actuarial value of the gratuity. Being aggrieved by the said order of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Heard Sri S.P. Sharma and Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7. This writ petition has been filed by the U.P. Motor Transport Association which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner's case is that petitioner association represent/ventilate common grievances for protection of interest of members of the association. The motor vehicles used by the members of the petitioner association for transportation have been insured with the respondent Insurance Companies and they have been paying annual insurance premium towards damages claim and third party claim. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for quashing the notification dated 15.4.2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) exercising power vested in it under Section 14(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)20ITD419(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the department were heard together and they are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-VIII, Bombay, for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee was a partner in a partnership firm called Himalaya Drug Co. The wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 for which the relevant valuation date is 31-3-1981 was completed by the First WTO, Asstt. Cir. VI, Bombay on 30-8-1983 on a net wealth of Rs. 55,81,122.The WTO determined the value of the assessee's interest in the firm in terms of Rules 2 and 2A to 2G of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules'). He specifically referred to Rule 2E to hold that amounts appearing in the balance sheet of the firm by way of development rebate reserve, investment allowance reserve, etc., could not be included in computing the net wealth of the firm. A claim was made before the WTO for deduction of gratuity reserve liabili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member, J. 01) The appellant is a company engaged in the business of distribution and retail supply of electricity in the specified areas of south and south-west of Delhi and is a successor entity of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). The appellant has challenged the tariff order dated 23.02.08 whereby the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) has passed an order on determination of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) of the appellant for the FY 2008 to 2011 and the distribution tariff for the period of 01.03.08 to 31.03.09 for which the appellant had filed petition No. 51 of 2007. The appellant alleges that the Commission has disallowed the projections made by the appellant and in the process has caused a loss of Rs.886.07 Crores in the FY 2008 and Rs.1458.65 Crores in the FY 2009. The disallowance made by the Commission has been broken up in three parts, namely: (a) Those relating to truing up by the Commission pursuant to the o...
Tag this Judgment!