Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2922; [1998]229ITR71(KAR); [1998]229ITR71(Karn)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The assessee is a Development Officer employed with the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). During the previous year pertaining to the asst. yr. 1983-84, he, apart from his other emoluments, had received a sum of Rs. 40,094 as incentive commission from the Corporation. At the time of assessment, he claimed 40 per cent. thereof, being Rs. 16,038, as permissible deduction. But the same was disallowed by the ITO on the ground that since incentive commission received by the assessee not being an income derived either from business or profession, no deduction, as claimed, is permissible therefrom. Accordingly, he added the incentive commission to his salary income and allowed only the standard deduction as contemplated under S. 16(i) of the IT Act, 1961 (In short, 'Act'). 2. Against the said assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC and succeeded in getting deduction of 40 per cent. as claimed. Aggrieved by the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.___1291__________ of 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.6221 OF2018 SWARAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO._____1292________ of 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.6458 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO._____1294________ of 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.6571 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO._____1293________ of 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.6597 OF2018 JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted. 1 2. The present case involves the right of a secured creditor to file a winding up petition after such secured creditor has obtained a decree from the Debts Recovery Tribunal [DRT]. and a recovery certificate based thereon.3. Several appeals were taken up together for hearing by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The brief facts necessary to decide the present appeals are as follows: The respondent, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, advanced vario...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1631; 1998(60)ECC471; 1998(99)ELT202(SC); JT1998(2)SC747; 1998(2)SCALE576; (1998)3SCC681; [1998]2SCR570
D.P. Wadhwa. J.1. M/s. Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. has filed this appeal against the order dated October 30. 1989 of the Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (for short 'Appellate Tribunal'). By this judgment the Appellate Tribunal while upholding the order of the Collector of Appeals observed that though there was an identity of interest between the appellant, manufacturer and M/s. Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd., its sole distributor, the Assistant Collector had not considered the break up of the shares of each member of the family of the manufacturer and distributor. The Appellate Tribunal held that the fact that there was identity of interest was the determining factor in holding whether a person is a related person within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). Since the Assistant Collector had not considered the break up of the shares of each member of the family comprising the two companies being the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.4491of2015 PATEL & KAMANI AGENCIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI. NAKUL KAMANI SON OF LATE DHARAM CHAND KAMANI, RESIDENT OF DHARAM CHAND MANSION, 5TH FLOOR, 4 INNER CIRCLE ROAD, PO. & PS. BISTUPUR JAMSHEDPUR831001 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GROUNDFLOOR,HINDUSTANBUILDING,MAINROAD,PO.&PS. BISTUPURJAMSHEDPUR PETITIONER VERSUS1 THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, A BODY CORPORATE ESTABLISHED UNDER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATIONACT,1956ANDHAVINGITSPRINCIPALOFFICEAT YOGAKSHEMA,JEVANBEEMAMARG,MUMBAIANDHAVINGITS OFFICESAMOUGSTOTHERPLACESATJEEVANPRAKASH,MAIN ROAD, BISTUPUR, TOWNJAMSHEDPUR, DIST. EAST SINGHBHUMINTHESTATEOFJHARKHANDANDZONALOFFICE AT JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA, STATE OFBIHAR 2. THE ESTATE OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA APPOINTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINEXERCISEOFPOWERCONFERRED BY S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2007)BC542(SC); JT2007(8)SC249; 2007(3)SCALE377
Altamas Kabir, J.1. All these appeals have been filed by the Syndicate Bank against the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 6thAugust, 2003, dismissing the several writ petitions filed by the Bank. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the Special Leave Petitions are that M/s. United Auto Tractors Private Limited, (for short 'the Company') one of the common respondents in all these appeals, applied to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for allotment of 100 acres of land in the industrial area for setting up of an industry for manufacturing agricultural tractors and implements. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by its letter dated 18thJuly, 1972 written by the Director of Industries allotted 51 acres of land in Nacharam Industrial Development Area, Hyderabad, to the company for setting up of the said industry. An Agreement was entered into on 3rd August, 1972 between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Company which requir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom174; (1970)72BOMLR698
Desai, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original respondents from the Judgment and order of Mr. Justice Vimadalal dated September, 28, 1967, granting an order of injunction restraining the original respondents from assessing or reassessing the Colaba Land and Mills Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the Mills Company to income-tax for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56. 2. It is sufficient to notice that in the Company petition No. 221 of 1958 the Official Liquidator was appointed Interim Liquidator of the Mills Company by an Order dated May 1, 1959. By an Order dated October 7, 1959, the Mills Company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was confirmed as Liquidator of the Mills Company with all powers under Section 457 of the Companies Act 1956. By six different Notices dated August 23, 1966, issued under Section 14 of, the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I (8), Bombay, recorded in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56 that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN553
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As a common question of law arises in these four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have been heard together at the request of the learned Counsel and will be disposed of by a single judgment.2. Petitioner Rameshwarlal (in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 70 of 1968) was an employee of the State Government as a lower Division clerk in the Rajasthan State Roadways Department. He passed the Accounts Clerk's qualifying Examination in 1964. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was constituted, and the petitioner's name appeared in the seniority list of the lower division clerks of the Corporation. He was selected for promotion as a Commercial Accounts Clerk, against a temporary post, by order Ex. 3 dated August 7, 1965, and was posted in that capacity at Udaipur. The State Government issued a notification on April 15, 1966 by which the employees were asked to exercise their option whether they wanted to continue in the service of the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(67)ECC428; 2000LC5(SC); 2000(115)ELT3(SC); JT1999(9)SC635; 2000(1)KLT441(SC); 1999(7)SCALE486; (2000)1SCC462
ORDERN. Santosh Hegde, J1. The appellant in these appeals manufactures beer in its Solan and Ghaziabad Breweries for which it uses Lupofresh aromatic hop pellets which is normally imported from abroad. For their requirement of cc hop pellets they used to place orders with an agent by name M/s. Pyarelal Sarin (Agencies) Private Limited, New Delhi, who, in turn, used to arrange for supply of hop pellets required by the appellant. On 11.6.1991 the appellant was informed that 2000 kg. of hop pellets had been despatched to their brewery which was received by them on 20.7.1991. The hop pellets so received by the appellant were from M/s. Arusan Industries who, in turn, had received the same from M/s. Integrated Exports, Madras. In view of certain raid conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in the premises of the appellant with regard to the said hop pellets, they came to know that there was certain investigation being conducted by the Customs Department with reference to the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC350; [2002]108CompCas193(SC); (2002)1CompLJ205(SC); [2002(1)JCR339(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC466; (2002)ILLJ550SC; 2001(8)SCALE541; (2002)2SCC333; [2002]35SCL182(SC); 2002
Kirpal, J.1. The validity of the decision of the Union of India to disinvest and transfer 51% shares of M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BALCO') is the primary issue in these cases.2. BALCO was incorporated in 1965 as a Government of India Undertaking under the Companies Act, 1956. Prior to its disinvestments it had a paid-up share capital of Rs. 488.85 crores which was owned and controlled by the Government of India. The company is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and had plants at Korba in the State of Chhattisgarh and Bidhanbag in the State of West Bengal. The Company has integrated aluminium manufacturing plant for the manufacture and sale of aluminium metal including wire rods and semi-fabricated products.3. The Government of Madhya Pradesh vide its letter dated 18th March, 1968 wrote to BALCO stating that it proposed that land be granted to it on a 99 years lease subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The letter envisaged gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]247ITR351(SC); JT2001(1)SC144; 2000(8)SCALE210; [2000]Supp5SCR518
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These are appeals that relate to the same assessee, Prince Muffkham Jah; they are in respect of the Assessment Years 1969-70 to 1975-76 and 1977-78. They raise the same question. That question was referred on the application of the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. The question reads thus:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) order who directed the Wealth Tax Officer to exclude the amount for the assessment year 1977-78 relating to the life interest of the assessee added by the Wealth Tax Officer in accordance with Rule 1B of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957.2. The principal judgment of the High Court was delivered in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax v. Prince Muffkham Jah Bahadur 1861 TR.421, which is challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 2388 to 2394 of 1994, and it was fo...
Tag this Judgment!