Court : Guwahati
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(Gau)267,[2009]317ITR259(Gauhati)
Amitava Roy, J.1. By the challenge laid in the instant proceeding, the petitioner seeks to abrogate the process of reassessment sought to be initiated by the impugned notice dated September 13, 2007, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle, Jorhat, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the steps consequential thereto. By order dated August 29, 2008, this Court while issuing notice had, in the interim, interdicted the exercise proposed.2. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, senior advocate assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, advocate for the petitioner and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the Revenue.3. The relevant facts providing the background as well as the rival pleadings have to be essentially noted to better comprehend the arguments advanced. The petitioner has presented itself to be a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at Purana Titabar in the district of Jorhat, Assam. It is engaged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In the present petition the petitioner ‘employee has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal No.PGA/65/2010, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Controlling Authority on 9.9.2010. 3. In support of the writ petition, Advocate Shri Khan argued that the petitioner had claimed supplementary gratuity in terms of the Regulation No. 11 of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Gratuity Fund) Regulations as amended, which provides for supplementary amount of gratuity in case of permanent disability, which had occurred in case of the petitioner/employee, but the claim has been denied for no reasons and on improper and illegal interpretation of the regulation. There is a further misco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 ITR No.38/1995 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.38/1995 APPLICANT : M/S LILASONS BREWERIES LTD. BHOPAL Vs. RESPONDENT : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL. Present : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha & Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe. For the applicant : Shri A. P. Shrivastava, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (07/03/2013) Per Shri R. S. Jha, J.This reference to a Full Bench has been made to decide the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lilasons Breweries Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, in M.C.C No.668/1993 decided on 16.7.1996, in the light of a decision of the Supreme Court, in the following terms:- Whether the reference in MCC No.668/1993 decided by the Division Bench on 16.7.1996 in the case of Lilasons Breweries Pvt. Limited, Bhopal Vs. Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4292/2013 Prem Chand Dhanoria V/s. Union of India & ORS.Date of Order ::: 13.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.Abhishek Pareek, for the petitioner. Mr.Vipul Dharnia for Mr.Ravi Bhansali for respondent No.1. Mr.Dinesh Mehta for respondent Nos.2 & 3, Mr.M.R.Singhvi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Mohit Singhvi for respondent No.6. Petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant for allotment of retail outlet dealership of respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (for, 'short HPCL') having location at six kilometers from Motipura Chowki Railway Crossing towards Chabbra, Udaipur, has laid this writ petition praying therein under mentioned reliefs :- It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed :- A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Result dated 20.01.2011 (Annexure-4) pertaining to private respondent Chetan Maheshwari and pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :11. h July, 2017 Date of decision:18. h September, 2017 W.P.(C) 5731/2017 DEEN DAYAL Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate versus ........ Petitioner DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA Through: Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate ........ RESPONDENTS ANU MALHOTRA, J.JUDGMENT1 The petitioner, Deen Dayal S/o Sh. Lal Singh vide the present petition has assailed the impugned award dated 4.11.2016 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court XVII, Karkardooma Courts Complex, New Delhi in LIR No.6820/2016 (Old No.24/08) whereby the reference made by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide order dated 06.02.2008 F.24(1306)/06/Lab./1374-78 to the effect; Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed by the management on Sh. Deen Dayal S/o Sh. Lal Singh, conductor, Badge No.10530 vide order dated 01.04.92 is illegal and/or unjustified; and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?. W.P.(C) 5731/2017 Page 1 of 36 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)24ITD383(Mad.)
1. These appeals by the assessee are consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience as they involve a common issue. These appeals pertain to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, 1977-78 to 1980-81 and arise out of the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore dated 18-11-1985. In this order the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rectificatory orders passed by the Income-tax Officer for these years under Section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 withdrawing development rebate/investment allowance already granted for the reason that the assets of the Chettinad Branch of the assessee, on which development rebate and investment allowance was granted, were transferred to M/s. Sri Nachammai Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee-company. The common issue, therefore, is whether the Income-tax Officer is justified in withdrawing the development rebate/investment allowance when the assessee holding company transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carlisle v. United States - 83 U.S. 147 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 147 147 (1872) Carlisle v. United States 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 147 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. Aliens domiciled in the United States in 1862 were engaged in manufacturing saltpeter in Alabama and in selling that article to the Confederate States, knowing that it was to be used by them in the manufacture of gunpowder for the prosecution of the war of the rebellion. Held that they thus gave aid and comfort to the rebellion. 2. The doctrine of Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342, that "he who, being bound by his allegiance to a government, sells goods to the agent Page 83 U. S. 148 of an armed combination to overthrow that government, knowing that the purchaser buys them for that treasonable purpose, is himself guilty of treason or a misprision thereof" repeated and affirmed. 3. Aliens domiciled in the United States owe a local and temporary allegiance t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR128; 2009(111)BomLR3325
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petition has been instituted in order to seek the revocation or annulment of a grant of probate by this Court on 25th November, 1997.2. Perin Gagrat who died on 31st January, 1987 had two children: the Petitioner who was her son, and Roshan, her daughter. The Second Respondent is Roshan's husband. On 14th January, 1984 a will was admittedly executed by Perin under which a life interest in her estate was created in favour of Roshan upon which the property was to devolve upon the Petitioner. A second will was admittedly executed by the deceased on 19th February, 1986 under which Perin bequeathed her entire estate to Roshan absolutely. This will was registered with the Subregistrar of assurances. The will which forms the subject matter of the dispute is alleged to have been executed by Perin on 21st January, 1987 under which a life interest was created in favour of Roshan after which the property would devolve upon the Second Respondent who was her husband. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2000]120STC261(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. In this revision, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated July 31, 1996, in respect of the assessment year 1990-91 is in dispute.2. The assessee undertook a contract for retreading of tyres from Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The assessing authority granted exemption for the turnover of Rs. 6.30.094.30 considering it to be inter-State transaction. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, exercised the revisional powers under Section 21(2) ex parte. The Tribunal was of the view that retreading of tyres amounts to deemed sale within the State under Section 5B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with entry 24 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act.3. The controversy that has arisen is because of explanation 3(c) to the definition of 'sale', which is to the following effect :'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (Central Act 3 of 1930), for the purpose of this Act, the transfer of property in goods (wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)10VST569(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is directed against the order of Full Bench of Tribunal dated 19.09.1998 relating to assessment year 1999-2000.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Applicant established a Unit for manufacturing of Laundry Soap and Detergent Powder. The Unit was established in its own land. The total investment towards machines was to the extent of Rs. 3,19,960/- consisting of one machine named as Pouch Sealing Machine valuing Rs. 24,400/-. Such machine was required for packing purposes. Admittedly, Pouch Sealing Machine was initially imported by the Finn M/S Gorakhpur Grah Udyog Kendra, Gorakhpur and thereafter, it was transferred to the applicant. Applicant claimed exemption under the Government Order dated 30.9.1982 under Section 4-A of the Act on the turnover of manufactured goods. The exemption a...
Tag this Judgment!