Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)46ITD80(Mum.)
1. The assessee appeals for the assessment year 1984-85. The order impugned is dated March 13, 1989, and has been made by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-II, Bangalore, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessment order is dated February 9, 1987. The said order was the subject-matter of an appeal by the assessee and the order of the learned first appellate authority bears the date July 31, 1987. The order of the learned Commissioner presently impugned in this appeal, as mentioned earlier, is of March 13, 1989.3. In view of the finding of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case reported as CIT v. International Computers Indian Manufacture Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 580 (Bom) at page 582, the impugned order stands cancelled with consequences flowing out of the above finding to follow.The decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is in the following terms : " It is held that the amendment is retrospective with effect from June 1, 1988, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1993)45ITD500(Pune.)
1. These appeals by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience, as they relate to same assessee and involve common issue.2. These appeals pertain to assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and arise out of the common orders passed by the CWT (Appeals), Belgaum for these years dated 26-9-1991. wherein he has cancelled the re-assessments made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 and allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1987-88. According to the CWT (Appeals), the Assessing Officer had no fresh material enabling him to re-open the assessments. Even after re-opening, the assets brought to tax would have been exempt under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. Revenue is in appeal on the following common grounds, viz. : (1) The order of the CWT (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. (2) The CWT (Appeals) erred in cancelling the assessment on the ground that the Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)2MLJ311
Srinivasan, J.1. A 'Introduction: In these writ petitions, the Constitutional validity of G.O.Ms. No. 536, Education (UI) Department, dated 17.5.1989 and G.O.Ms. No. 661, Education (UI) Department, dated 12.6.1991 is challenged mainly on the ground that they violate the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and they offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By the two Government Orders the State Government introduced certain amendment to the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977 approved in G.O.Ms. No. 2080, Education, dated 14.9.1977. Before referring to the provisions thereof and the contentions of the parties, a brief peep into the history is necessary. [After tracing the history of the impugned G. Os. and the compelling circumstances under which they were issued, His Lordship proceeded -Ed.] 2. By the said Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 536) the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993ACJ787; AIR1993SC1960; 76(1993)CLT98(SC); 1993CriLJ2899; JT1993(2)SC503; 1993(II)OLR(SC)50; 1993(2)SCALE309; (1993)2SCC746; [1993]2SCR581
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. A letter dated 14.9.1988 sent to this Court by Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera, was treated as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for determining the claim of compensation made therein consequent upon the death of petitioner's son Suman Behera, aged about 22 years, in police custody. The said Suman Behera was taken from his home in police custody at about 8 a.m. on 1.12.1987 by respondent No. 6, Sarat Chandra Barik, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Jaraikela Police Outpost under Police Station Bisra, Distt. Sundergarh in Orissa, in connection with the investigation of an offence of theft and detained at the Police Outpost. At about 2 p.m. the next day on 2.12.1987, the petitioner came to know that the dead body of her son Suman Behera was found on the railway track near a bridge at some distance from the Jaraikela railway station. There were multiple injuries on the body of Suman Behera when it was found and obviously his death was u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP214
S.K. Jha, C.J. 1. We have assembled today for the purpose of deciding only one incidental matter on which learned counsel for the parties insist. We give our ruling at the outset before we proceed further to hear the counsel for the parties on merits of the writ petition. That limited question as to the legality or propriety of the Governor either in his official capacity or by name described as the Governor, respondent No. 6 in the writ petition was warranted in law or was. precluded by virtue of the legal immunity attached to the Governor on account of his acts done or purported to be done in his official capacity under the provisions of Article 361 of the Constitution of India. While on the one hand, Shri N. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner insists that Shri Kunwar Mehmood Ali, Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh was a necessary party and no immunity could be enjoyed by him qua a Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution, It was not only proper but legal for him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2005; JT1993(3)SC82; 1993(2)SCALE593; 1993Supp(4)SCC136; [1993]3SCR199
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. These civil appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Southern Steel Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board, Hyderabad MR 1990 AP 58. The facts briefly are as under:3. The Andhra Pradesh Stale Electricity Board is constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said Board is engaged in generation, distribution and supply of electricity in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Electric energy is supplied for industrial, commercial, agricultural and domestic purposes. To such of these industries, using energy about a particular level, it is supplied at a higher voltage. They are classified as high tension consumers (H.T. consumers). All the appellants herein belong to that category.4. Section 49 of the Act empowers the Board to notify the tens and conditions upon which it will supply electricity to a person. It is also empowered to frame unifo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT1
G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of O.P.No. 129 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 18-1-1991 by which the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation by Rs. 60/-per square yard over and above the compensation of Rs. 20/- granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, hereinafter referred to, for short, as 'HUDA'; in other words, fixing the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 80/- per square yard. Having been aggrieved by the enhancement granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, the Land Acquisition Officer, HUDA preferred A.S.No. 2087 of 1991. Claimant has also preferred A.S.No. 1565 of 1991 claiming a total compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square yard.2. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. In order to appreciate the proper questions of law and fact involved in the matter, it would be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT32
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. This writ petition was filed for a Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction restraining the respondents from determining the Non-Agricultural Land Assessment on the entire land of Ac.30-02 cents in S.No. 440/A3 situate at Kanakadripalli, H/o Itikala Village, Kolimigundla Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner further sought a direction to determine the Non-Agricultural Land Assessment only on the extent of 2431.99 square metres which is the actual area occupied by the Cement Factory.2. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It was assigned an extent of Ac.30-02 cents for the purpose of starting Cement Factory. The assignment by way of alienation was made by the Proceedings of the Collector in Rc.B.469935/84 dt.8-6-1985. The Cement Factory was constructed and actually commissioned for production in May, 1986. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Factory consists of buildings wherein the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1995)84CompCas838
1. This is a petition filed on May 14, 1992, under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, by Shri Hemant D. Vakil and three other shareholders of RDI Print and Publishing Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "RDIL") holding 8.29 per cent. shares. The petition is supported by three other shareholders holding 2.96 per cent. of RDIL.RDIL was incorporated in December, 1978, as a private limited company with the main object of acquiring, printing, publishing and circulating and/or dealing with newspapers, journals, magazines, periodicals and other publications and for editing and carrying on other business as proprietor and publisher of newspapers, journals, magazines and other literary works. RDIL became a Section 43A-company on October 1, 1988, and as per the certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, it ceased to be a Section 43A-company on January 31, 1991, in terms of Notification No. G.S.R. 795(E), dated September 18, 1990.2. The first respondent is RDIL and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : II(1993)ACC479; 1993ACJ673; AIR1993Guj171; (1993)1GLR779
M.B. Shah, J. I. BRIEF FACTS:1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baroda, has awarded compensation amount of Rs. 53,400 / by judgment and order dated April 3, 1978 to the heirs of the deceased, Sultan Singh, who expired on January 8, 1976. That order is challenged by the Insurance Company by filing this First Appeal. The Insurance Company contended that, when a person is travelling by a 'goods vehicle' even by paying fare, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured or, in any case, its liability under the statutory insurance coverage is limited. The entire matter is referred to Larger Bench by the Division Bench of this Court after hearing the learned advocates for the parties. Before referring the entire matter for decision to the Larger Bench, the Division Bench of this Court has suggested the following questions, which are required to be determined by this Court.(i) What would be the extent of liability of the Insurer under Section 95(2) in respect of death of or...
Tag this Judgment!