Court : Mumbai
1) This appeal was admitted on 21/12/2010 on one question of law, which at the hearing of the appeal, by consent, is reframed into two questions, as follows :-a) Whether the transactions in exchange traded financial derivatives are "speculative transactions" as defined in Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ?b) If so whether clause (d) inserted to the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act w.e.f. 1-4-2006 would apply to such transactions undertaken in the assessment year 2003-04 ?2) The respondent-assessee is an HUF engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities, etc. 3) In the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had entered into certain transactions in exchange traded derivatives ('derivative transactions' for short) which resulted in loss amounting to Rs. 28,37,707/-. The assessee claimed the above loss as business loss. In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short) the assessing officer rejected the contention o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR705
..... children, if any children are indeed found serving in any dance bars, it would be in a place undesirable and unsuitable to their age.none other than mahatma gandhi had said :i hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection of men from the cruelty of men.though the mere ..... manner unknown to any known or established dance form and done with the sole objective of arousing lust; the dance was merely wild gyrations to the tune of hindi film songs in the presence of men and not traditional dance forms of bharatnatyam, kuchipudi, kathak; the dance performances were neither entertainment nor art; the dancers ..... 2005 for that purpose. the dances, performed in various 'dance bars,' as called in colloquial language, are usually performed by artistes who imitate dances performed in various hindi movies. the dresses worn by dancers in these bars are usually traditional indian dresses like sarees, ghaghra cholis or salwar kameez unlike the dresses worn by dancers in movies .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP196; 2002(2)MPHT353
..... be confused with state control over academic policy and practices. our universities should be released from the control of politics,....' the avowed object with which the two acts and the gandhi act have been enacted by the kerala legislature, is to leave the pursuit of higher education under the control and management of various academic bodies of the universities. even the ..... vedic swasthya vidhanmaharishi jyotishmaharishi sthapatya vedmaharishi yogmaharishi gandharva vedmaharishi darshanmaharishi vedic prashashan (i) professional courses in :project managementhuman resource managementfinancial managementmarketing managementaccounting & auditingbanking (j) vocational courses in :typing and stenography -- hindi/englishoffice management and secretarial practicecomputer technology marketing and sales dress designing and manufacturing textile designing and printing horticulture seed production crop production sericulture food processing & preservation cultivation & plantation of medicinal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT431:AIR2009NOC2482(A.P)(F.B).
..... decision in schmidt v. secretary of state for home affairs (1969) 2 ch d 149 which was followed by this court in maneka was followed by this court in maneka gandhi's case (supra) summarises the above principle as follows: 'where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that ..... , namely, commissioner, hindu religious endowments v. s.l.t.s.s.s. mutt : air 1954 sc 282, jagannath ramanuj das v. state of orissa air 1954 sc 40, ratilal panachand gandhi v. state of bombay : air 1954 sc 388, hingir-rampur coal co. ltd v. state of orissa : air 1961 sc 459, h.h. sadhundra thirtha swamiar v. commissioner for hindu ..... as products of livestock for the purpose of the act. here we may refer to ram chandra kailash kumar v. state of u.p. : air 1980 sc 1124, dineshchandra jamnadas gandhi v. state of gujarat : air 1989 sc 1011, sita devi v. state of bihar : 1995 supp (1) scc 670 and i.t.c. limited v. person incharge, agriculture market committee .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR604; 2008(2)BomCR780; [2009]147CompCas579(Bom); [2008]82SCL79(Bom)
J.N. Patel, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenges the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6th March, 1997 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (S.E.B.I.) in the case of SESA Goa, which rejected the complaint lodged by the petitioner in the matter of acquisition of Sesa Goa Co. Ltd. by MITSUI & Co. of Japan through Finsider International Co. Ltd. It was the case of the petitioner that the said acquisition was in violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1994') and in violation of the provisions of Clauses 40A and B of the Listing Agreement of the Stock Exchange. 3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1893; [1995(71)FLR102]; (1995)2GLR1550; JT1995(4)SC264; 1995LabIC2207; (1995)IILLJ790SC; 1995(3)SCALE498; (1995)5SCC27; [1995]Supp1SCR173; (1996)1UPLBEC359
..... khan v. commissioner of police, madras and anr. : [1965]2scr884 ; state of u.p. v. abdul rashid and ors. [1984] supp. scc 347 and bhagwati prasad dixit 'ghorewala' v. rajeev gandhi, : [1986]2scr823 .13. it is not necessary for us to go into the question of the finality of the decision under section 10 of the act since as held by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR277; 2009(111)BomLR4211; 2009(6)MhLj500
..... ridge v. baldwin 1963(1) wb 569, 578, harman lj, in the court of appeal countered natural justice with `fairplay in action' a phrase favoured by bhagawati, j. in maneka gandhi v. union of india : 1978 (2) scr 621. in re r.n. (an infant) 1967(2) b617, 530, lord parker, cj, preferred to describe natural justice as `a duty to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR562; (2009)IIILLJ275Bom
..... the lower court but still with some specified limitations which may be an integral part of the order or by necessary presumption of law. in the case of smt. indira gandhi v. raj narain and anr. : [1978]2scr405 , the supreme court observed that the specific directions suspending the judgment and order under appeal, read in its plenitude, also suspends the finding .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1296; JT2000(3)SC221; 2000(2)SCALE415; (2000)4SCC640; [2000]2SCR299
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. (Majority view G. B. Pattanaik, U. C. Banerjee, JJ concurring). Leave granted in Special Leave Petition No. 16476 of 1993.2. Both these appeals, on grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, are moved by the State of Bihar, which is common appellant No. 1 in both these appeals. In Civil Appeal No. 9072 of 1996 the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Government of Bihar is appellant No. 2, while in the companion appeal arising from the Special Leave Petition No. 16476 of 1993, the other contesting appellant is the Special Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. In both these appeals, a common question of law arises for consideration, namely, whether the Legislature of the State of Bihar was competent to enact the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ193
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant's family consists of himself, his wife, one son and one daughter. According to appellant, there was an oral partition between himself and his minor son [ Sharanappa ] on 13-3-1972 and subsequently that was reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of partition [palupatti]. According to appellant, under the said petition his minor son had been allotted Sy. Nos. 86 [7 acres 21 guntas ], 156 [6 acres 15 guntas], 65 [6 guntas], 66/1 [2 acres 17 guntas], 290/A [34 guntas], 293/A [1 acre 11 guntas] and 294/B [18 guntas] in all 19 acres 02 guntas; and the appellant held the remaining land viz., Sy. Nos. 69/3 [3 acres 12 guntas], 74/2 [6 acres 20 guntas], 85 [10 acres 5 guntas], 334 [24 guntas], 335 [34 guntas], 338 [5 acres 6 guntas] and 40 [13 acres] in all 39 acres 21 guntas.2. The appellant filed a declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] in regard to the lands held by him. In the said declaration...
Tag this Judgment!