Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Decided on : Dec-31-1986
Reported in : (1987)20ITD768(Hyd.)
1. These two appeals are against the consolidated order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') setting aside the assessments made by the ITO under Section 147 of the Act and directing him to redo the same afresh. The prejudice caused to the revenue was on account of the omission of the ITO to consider whether two businesses done under the names of Pillai Enterprises and Sagar Enterprises were the concerns of the assessee or not. We are asked to decide in substance one question of law, that is, (7) whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise assessment order admittedly made under Section 147 and (2) a question of fact whether there were materials report that two businesses really belong to the assessee.2. The original assessments for these two years had a chequered history. The assessment for the year 1971-72 was made on 11-11-1971.The income declared by the assessee-firm was accepted as correct.However, this assessment was reopened under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-03-1986
Reported in : [1986(52)FLR661]; 1986LabIC863; (1986)ILLJ490SC; 1986(1)SCALE1048; (1986)2SCC624; [1986]2SCR126; 1986(3)SLJ29(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This is an Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court against the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra dismissing a complaint filed by the Appellant Union under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Maharashtra Act No.l of 1972) complaining of an unfair labour practice on the part of the First Respondent Company, namely, a failure to implement the Settlement dated February 1, 1979, entered into between the Appellant Union and the First Respondent Company. This Act will hereinafter be referred to in short as 'the Maharashtra Act'.2. The First Respondent Company, S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited and carries on the business of pharmaceuticals, pigments and chemicals. The Second Respondent is the General Manager (Marketing) of the Company. The Appellant Union, S.G. Chemicals ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-04-1986
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Ker)266; [1987]168ITR332(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam, against M/s. Metalex Agencies and its partners and also some of its officers. The said agency is a firm having eleven partners. The complaint was taken on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ernakulam, and was later transferred to the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. There are seventeen accused of which the firm is the first accused. Offences alleged against the accused are those under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), besides offences under Sections 120B, 193, 196, 420 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Almost a decade after the institution of the complaint, one of the accused (the 13th accused) filed a petition in the trial court praying for discharge of the accused on various grounds. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by order dated March 12, 1985, against which Crl. R.P. No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-12-1986
Reported in : II(1986)ACC314; AIR1986MP251; 1986MPLJ689
B.M. Lal, J. 1. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of the connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 252 of 1984 (Bapulal Kesharimal & Company v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjan and Anr.), No. 878 of 84 (Akhtari Begum & Sons and Anr. v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain and Anr.). No. 3469 of 1984 (Vijay Motor Transport Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.), No. 725 of 1983 (Ramesh Chand v. Regional Transport Authority, Indore and Anr.), No. 1599 of 1985 (Ramprasad Purohit and Anr. v. State of M. P. and Anr.), and No. 3195 of 85 (M. P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.). 2. These petitions are under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners who are bus operators, are seeking to quash the notifications issued by the various Regional Transport Authorities, wherein reservation of bus routes for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes has been notified, on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-27-1986
Reported in : 1987(13)ECC326; 1986(26)ELT935(Mad)
ORDER1. Pursuant to the notice of motion issued in the morning, Mr. T. Somasundaram, learned counsel for the respondents appeared. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal and disposed of accordingly. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the appeal pending before the first respondent against the orders of the second respondent, an application for stay was filed and in spite of reminders, the first respondent had not taken up the said application and passed orders thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice the trade notice dated 16.4.1985 issued by the Department of Central Excise which reads as follows : 'It has been represented that coercive action to realise arrears from the Assessee is being taken before the expiry of the statutory period for filing appeal. It is clarified that no steps to recover disputed dues will be taken till one month after expiry of the period of appeal, that is to say, upto four months from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-15-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Mad140
ORDER1. This application is filed by the petitioning creditors under S. 90(4) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, for permission to amend the cause title and para (1) of the petition by substituting the names! of the three surviving partners Baburam Gagoria, Mamchand Gagoria and Subashchand Gagoria in the place of the deceased partner Kailashchand Gagoria.2. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application by one of the partners that at the time of filing the Insolvency Petition for administering the estate of the deceased-debtor under S. 108 of the Insolvency Act, his brother's name was shown in the cause title as representing the firm. His brother Kailashchand Gagoria died at Madras on 18-8-1986. It is further averred that the names of all the partners are given in the Insolvency Petition in para (1). Since the respondent's counsel has taken an objection that the partner, who represented the firm died, the matter cannot be proceeded further unless the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-11-1986
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two Petitions are being disposed of by the following common order as they involve the same substantial question of law though the prayers in the two petitions are differently worded.2. In Writ Petition No. 16184 of 1979, the petitioner has prayed that this Court may issue a Writ or Direction or Order in the nature of a declaration declaring that Exhibit 'E', the Government Order dated 22-2 1978, is illegal and unlawful. He has also prayed that a Writ of Prohibition may be issued to the Government prohibiting it from taking any action in respect of the petitioner, who is working under the third respondent in the first of the petitions, viz., The Karnataka State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred 10 as 'the KSCLD Bank'). The other prayers are general prayers for consequential reliefs, if any.The prayer in Writ Petition No. 1452 of 1980 is to quash the Government Order dated 22-2-1978 produced at Exhibit 'G', which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-03-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Guj253; (1987)2GLR1345
Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Special Criminal Application No. 427 of 1986 comes up before the Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of our High Court. The petitioner herein is sought to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. On 6-121985, his premises were searched and kerosene tins were seized. On 20-2-1986, a detention order was made under S. 3(l) of the said Act. Since the petitioner was absconding, a notification was issued in the Official Gazette as provided under S. 7(l)(b) of the said Act. This was on 29-3-1986. On 34-1986 this Special Criminal Application was filed wherein the petitioner prayed for quashing the detention order as ab initio void and illegal. There is a further prayer for grant of stay against the execution of the order of detention passed by the second respondent, who is the Deputy Secretary to Government, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Gujarat. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-16-1986
Reported in : [1988]63CompCas328(AP)
Rama Rao, J.1. A. S. No. 532 of 1978 : The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,60,425.04 together with interest personally against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 8, 10 to 13 and against the assets of defendants Nos. 3 and 9 in the hands of defendant Nos. 14 to 22 and in default of payment for sale of the suit property for realisation of the decree debt. The suit is filed on the basis of a promissory note executed for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 and agreeing to repay the loan with interest at 5% over the Reserve Bank rate with a minimum of 11% per annum subject to periodical enhancement. The plea of the defendants is that the rate of interest is abnormal and excessive. Apart from other pleas, it is stated that the amount has to be scaled down fixing a reasonable rate of interest. The learned judge found that for the principal amount of Rs. 1,30,000, Rs. 52,280.04 is claimed. The learned judge held that this is unurious, penal and unconscionable. In the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-17-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1213; (1986)2GLR1209; 1986(1)SCALE537; (1986)3SCC12; [1986]2SCR719
R.B. Misra, J.1. In the wake of Article 48 of the Constitution the State of Bombay also passed an enactment, the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 for the preservation of animals suitable for milch, breeding or for agricultural purposes. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 2 the Act was to apply in the first instance to the animals specified in the schedule and the schedule mentioned bovines (bulls, bullocks, cows, calves, male and female buffaloes and buffalo-calves). Under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any other animal, which in its opinion, it is desirable to preserve. It does not appear that the provisions of the Act were ever made applicable to any other animals after the initial enactment of the Act and the schedule by the Bombay legislature. Section 5 of the Act, so far it is material, runs :5.(1) Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any usage to the contrary, ...
Tag this Judgment!