Court : Kolkata
FORM NO.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (income tax) ORIGINAL SIDE Present: Honble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And Honble Justice Indrajit Chatterjee ITA NO.32 of 2001 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL I, CALCUTTA Versus APEEJAY MEDICAL RESEARCH & WELFARE ASSOCIATION (P) LTD.Advocate for the Appellant: Mr.S.B.Saraf, Adv.Advocate for the respondent: Mr.S.K. Kapoor, Sr.Adv.Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Hearing concluded on: 19.02.2016 Judgement delivered on:18.03.2016. GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. The revenue has come up in appeal against a judgement and order dated 18th August, 2000 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E Bench, Calcutta pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89 affirming an order of the CIT(A) allowing exemption under Section 10(22A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The following questions of law were formulated at the time of admission of the appeal:i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Calder v. Bull - 3 U.S. 386 (1798) U.S. Supreme Court Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 386 386 (1798) Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 I N ERROR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus A resolution or law of the State of Connecticut setting aside a decree of a court and granting a new trial to be had before the same court is not void under the Constitution as an ex post facto law. The Legislature of Connecticut, on the second Thursday of May, 1795, passed a resolution or law which set aside a decree of the Court of Probate for Hartford County made 21 March, 1793, disapproving a the will of N.M. and refusing to record the will. The act of the legislature authorized a new hearing of the case before the court of probate, and an appeal to the superior court. Afterwards the will of N.M. was confirmed by the court of probate and by the Superior Court at Hartford;, and on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut the judgment of the superior court was confirmed. Mor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.995
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue as subscribers to a society known as the Society of St. Vincent de'Paul St. Francis Conference, on behalf of themselves and all other persons interested in the subject-matter of the suit. They ask in their plaint (1) that the defendants may be removed from their respective offices in the St. Vincent de'Paul St. Francis Conference at Cochin, and (2) that they may be ordered to render an account of the affairs of the society for the time daring which they wore in office.2. In their written statement the defendants allege that the society is a voluntary society whose primary object is the spiritual well-being of its members, and that only, secondarily, it has a charitable object, as ministering to such spiritual welfare; that the society is governed by a written constitution and by the directions issued by the general council in Paris; that the first plaintiff has been a subscriber of the sum of two annas monthly from 1893 till December...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.701
Davar, J.1. The seven plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Parsi community of Bombay. They profess the Zoroastrian religion. The five defendants are also members of the same community and profess the same religion.2. The Parsis in India are descendants of a body of Persians who wore, about 1200 years ago, compelled to leave their Fatherland owing to religious persecution at the hands of the Mahomedans. This body of Persians, after taking refuge in Kohistan and afterwards in the Isle of Ormus, eventually made their home in India, and at the present time Bombay is their principal headquarters.3. Since their advent into India they have continued to follow the religion of their forefathers, and wherever they have settled in any appreciable numbers they have built for themselves Atash Behrams, Agiaries, and Dare Mehers for the performance of their religious worship and the observance of their religious rites and ceremonies and erected Dokhmas for the disposal of their dead according to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR162
Beaman, J. 1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs, the Hope Mills Company, to redeem three mortgages of the year 1900 should it be found that the second and third of these have been bona fide purchased by the first mortgagee for himself, and incidentally to have the two agreements of the years 1901 and 1905, respectively, should defendant No. 1 rely upon them, declared invalid and not binding on the plaintiff Company.2. On the 5th of April 1900, the plaintiff Company mortgaged the Hope Mills to the defendant No. 1 for five lakhs rupees. The second and third mortgages were effected by one and the same instrument on the 31st of May 1900, and these two . mortgages have been referred to throughout the case as Tokersey's and Ichharam's mortgages.3. On failure to pay the first installment of interest, the defendant No. 1 entered into possession on the 14th December 1900. In March, 1901 the defendant No. 1 put the mortgaged property up for sale, but as the reserved price was not reached, it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis - 233 U.S. 389 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U.S. 389 (1914) German Alliance Insurance Company v. Lewis No. 120 Argued December 10, 1913 Decided April 20, 1914 233 U.S. 389 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus The business of insurance is so far affected with a public interest as to justify legislative regulation of its rates. A public interest can exist in a business, such as insurance, distinct from a public use of property, and can be the basis of the power of the legislature to regulate the personal contracts involved in such business. Where a business such as insurance is affected by a public use, it is the business that is the fundamental thing; property is but the instrument of such business. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 ; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517 ; Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391 , demonstrate that a business, by circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gitlow v. People - 268 U.S. 652 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Gitlow v. People, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Gitlow v. People No.19 Argued April 12, 1923 Reargued November 23, 1923 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 652 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. Assumed, for the purposes of the case, that freedom of speech and of the press are among the personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States. P. 268 U. S. 666 . 2. Freedom of speech and of the press, as secured by the Constitution, is not an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose or an immunity for every possible use of language. P. 268 U. S. 666 . 3. That a State, in the exercise of its police power, may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime or disturb the public peace, is not open to question. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1929)57MLJ219
Tiruvenkatachariar, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Mr. Justice Odgers dismissing with costs S.A. No. 401 of 1922. The plaintiff is the appellant before us and the main question involved in this appeal is whether the suit properties which originally belonged to one Panchanathier were by his will, dated 8th January, 1898 (Ex. A in the case) dedicated absolutely for the performance of a charity styled by him as Dwadasi Dharmam and the persons expressly nominated by him in the will for the conduct of the said charity, viz., his nephews Venkataramier and Sivaswami were constituted as mere trustees for the performance of the said charity or whether under the said will Panchanathier bequeathed the suit properties to Venkataramier personally subject to a trust in favour of the said charity which was to be conducted by him and after his death by his younger brother Sivaswami and after the latter's death by their heirs in perpetuity.2. The plaintiff's case is that the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) United States v. Butler No. 401 Argued December 9, 10, 1935 Decided January 6, 1936 297 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Processors of farm products have a standing to question the constitutionality of the "processing and floor-stock taxes" sought to be laid upon them by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933, 48 Stat. 31. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 , distinguished. P. 297 U. S. 57 . 2. A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of Government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be expended for another, as a necessary means in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for regulating agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment Act. P. 297 U. S. 61 . 3. In testing the validity of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1940Cal51
1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for partition and accounts. The suit was instituted on 8th March 1935 by four plaintiffs, three being brothers of defendant and the fourth his brother's widow. The properties in respect of which the claim was made consists of five items a dwelling house described in schedule Ka, and items 4 of property described in sch. Kha. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that items 2 to 4 of sch. Kha had been sold long before the suit with the concurrence of the parties to the suit or their predecessors-in-interest, and in item 1 of sch. Kha there are other cosharers not parties to the suit. He has accordingly excluded from partition the items four of sch. Kha and has only directed partition of the house described in sch. Ka on a declaration that the plaintiffs have four-fifths share (each of them a fifth share) and the defendant the remaining fifth share. He has also declared that the parties have shares in the same proportion in item 1 of...
Tag this Judgment!