Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)111ITD287(Delhi)
1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (In short 'the CIT(A)'), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1998- 99 and the following question has been referred to this Special Bench for its decision : Whether, the non-compete fee received by the assessee from FI Plc., U.K. is not liable to tax being in the nature of capital receipt? 2. The material facts relevant to the question referred to this Bench are that the assessee was a Computer Engineer associated with Software and Information Technology. He was the promoter and founder of as well as the Managing Director in one Software Company, viz M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd. He held 8,66,450 shares of the said company. The said company was agreed to be taken over by the FI Group Plc. UK and as per the shares purchase agreement dated 4.12.1997 entered into by the U.K. company with the shareholders of M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd, including the assessee, 76% of the subscribed equity capital ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal of the assessee has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (In short 'the CIT(A)'), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1998-99 and the following question has been referred to this Special Bench for its decision: Whether, the non-compete fee received by the assessee from FI Plc, U.K. is not liable to tax being in the nature of capital receipt 2. The material facts relevant to the question referred to this Bench are that the assessee was a Computer Engineer associated with Software and Information Technology. He was the promoter and founder of as well as the Managing Director in one Software Company, viz M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd. He held 8,66,450 shares of the said company. The said company was agreed to be taken over by the FI Group Pic. UK and as per the shares purchase agreement dated 4.12.1997 entered into by the U.K. company with the shareholders of M/s. IIS Infotech Ltd, including the assessee, 76% of the subscribed equity capital was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ270; 2007(5)CTC392
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.8.2003 passed in W.P.No. 10291 of 2003.2. The issue relates to payment of subsistence allowance payable to the appellant for the period of suspension pending disciplinary action.3. The appellant was placed under suspension by the first respondent on 25.1.1999 pending disciplinary action against him. Alleging non payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant preferred PSA No. 2/02 and 3/02 claiming subsistence allowance for two different periods. By order, dated 12.7.2002, the third respondent ordered a sum of Rs. 12122/- in PSA.No. 2/02 and Rs. 53276/- in PSA No. 3/02 to be payable by the first respondent to the appellant. Both the appellant and the first respondent preferred PAA Case No. 5/02-1 and 5/02 before the second respondent. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the third respondent by his order, dated 24.2.2003.4. Aggrieved against the same, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)105ITD169(Chd.)
1. The appeal of the revenue for assessment year 1996-97 is directed against the order dated 22-3-2000 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh. The only dispute is relating to the nature of Rs. 55 lakhs received by the assessee on the basis of the agreement(s) executed between the parties, and its taxability.2.The relevant facts in this case are that the respondent family hailed from that part of India which is now in Pakistan and was carrying on the business of manufacture of ice-cream for the past many generations.It was a large family and at the time of partition various branches of the family migrated to India and settled in different parts of India like Shimla, Chandigarh, Delhi, Lucknow, Calcutta, Bombay etc. where every one was carrying on his own business of manufacturing ice-cream and running of restaurants. The Chandigarh branch of the family started manufacturing ice-cream under the brand name "Kwality" and the icecream was being sold in the following territorie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD685
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Questioning the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in M.P. No. 4 of 1996 in I.D. No. 21 of 1980, dated 7.4.1997, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal Depot, has filed the present writ petition.2. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the first respondent was appointed as a Conductor on 12.10.1963 and was removed from service on 6.11.1971 for his involvement in cash and ticket irregularities. The first respondent raised a dispute, in I.D.No. 21 of 1980, before the Tribunal and, by award dated 9.8.1980, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the first respondent into service with full back wages and all other attendant benefits. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed W.P.No. 2872 of 1981, and the execution of the award was stayed by this Court subject to the condition that the workman be reinstated and 1/6th of the back wages that were awarded being deposited.3. It is the case of the petitioner that, pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. May the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ("SIAC"), a superior court of record established by statute, when hearing an appeal under section 25 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 by a person certified and detained under sections 21 and 23 of that Act, receive evidence which has or may have been procured by torture inflicted, in order to obtain evidence, by officials of a foreign state without the complicity of the British authorities? That is the central question which the House must answer in these appeals. The appellants, relying on the common law of England, on the European Convention on Human Rights and on principles of public international law, submit that the question must be answered with an emphatic negative. The Secretary of State agrees that this answer would be appropriate in any case where the torture had been inflicted by or with the complicity of the British authorities. He further states that it is not his intenti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)98ITD242(Asr.)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jammu, headquarters at Amritsar dated 11-12-2001 for the assessment year 1999-2000 on the following grounds : "1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts of the case in rejecting the appeal of the assessee.2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000.4. That the said amount was received as non-compete fee directly from Hindustan Coca Cola and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the claim of the assessee that the said amount is not taxable, without there being any material on record.5. That the assessment was a protective assessment and the learned Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the same is assessable in the hands of Jammu Bottling Company Private Limited, a Company in which the assessee is a Director, and the matter is before the Hon'ble Tribunal.6. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2920; JT2005(6)SC79; (2005)5SCC665
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by way of public interest litigation for declaring certain provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, (Act No. 39 of 1983) 1983 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and consequent declaration that the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the State of Assam. The second prayer made is to declare the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and also under Section 28 of the aforesaid Act and, therefore, null and void. Some more reliefs have been claimed which will be referred to at the appropriate stage. The respondents to the writ petition are the Union of India and the State of Assam. 2. The case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident in the State of Assam. He is a former President of the All Assam Stu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - 03-6696 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 HAMDI V. RUMSFELD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAMDI et al. v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 036696. Argued April 28, 2004Decided June 28, 2004 After Congress passed a resolutionthe Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)empowering the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations, or persons that he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks, the President ordered the Armed Forces to Afghanistan to subdue al Qaeda and quell the supporting Taliban regime. Petitioner Hamdi, an American citizen whom the Government has classified as an enemy combatant for allegedly taking up arms with the Taliban during the conflict, was captured in Afghanistan and presently is detained at a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. Hamdis father f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1559; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)339; (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN30; 109(2004)DLT17(SC); 2004(73)DRJ720; JT2004(2)SC1; 2004(1)SCALE677; (2004)2SCC510; 2004(2)LC955(SC)
V.N. Khare, C.J. 1. Leave granted in the S.L.P.2. In these appeals a short but an important question that arises for consideration is whether the right to fly the National Flag by Indian citizen is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.3. Naveen Jindal, the respondent herein, is a Joint Managing Director of a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. He being in charge of the factory of the said company situated at Raigarh in Madhya Pradesh was flying National Flag at the office premises of his factory. He was not allowed to do so by the government officials on the ground that the same is impermissible under the Flag Code of India.4. Questioning the said action, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that no law could prohibit flying of National Flag by Indian citizens. Flying of National Flag with respect and dignity being a fundamental right, the Flag Code which contain...
Tag this Judgment!