Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)11
1. These are two appeals by the same assessee against two different orders of the learned CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-01. As common facts are involved in these two appeals and further as the...(sic) interconnected in the two assessment years, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being decided by a common order.2. Shri Ajay Vohra and Shri Prakash Narayan, advocates and Smt. Rashmi Kapoor, chartered accountant appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Sunil Aggarwal, senior Departmental Representative represented the Revenue.3. Before proceeding to adjudicate the grounds taken in this appeal by the assessee and additional grounds admitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, we consider it proper to briefly narrate the facts of this matter, which are as under: 3.1 The assessee company was manufacturing various electrical equipments like transformers, switches, switchgears, bulbs, lamps and tubes, etc. It was having various factories at various places in the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)1CompLJ69(SC); 2006(2)CTLJ130(SC); (2006)4MLJ1224(SC); 2006(8)SCALE477; (2006)7SCC756
S.B. Sinha, J.Background facts:1. Kanpur is a metropolitan town. The respondents herein were owners of a house property bearing municipal number 7/169, on a freehold plot bearing No. 22, measuring 2978 sq. yards, situate in Block B, Scheme No. 7, Gutaiyya, Swaroop Nagar in the said town ('the property' for short). The 1st respondent-Pushpa Devi Saraf and the 2nd respondent-Mohan Lal Saraf intended to promote a company in the name of the 5th respondent-M/s. Kanpur Exports (P) Ltd. ('the Company' for short). They filed an application therefore as promoters of the Company on 15.2.1979. They acquired the property in their capacity of promoters or Directors of the proposed company from one Shanti Narain Verma by a registered Deed of Sale dated 24.2.1979 at a price of Rs. 2 lakhs. The said Deed of Sale contained a clause of re-conveyance of 'the property'.2. The Company was incorporated on 19.6.1979. The amount of consideration paid to said Shanti Narain Verma was repaid by the Company by tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD566
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This petition is directed against G.O. Ms. No. 99, Law (LA & J.SC.F) Department, dated 25-7-2005 as amended on 30-7-2005, whereby the Government of Andhra Pradesh retired the petitioner, who was a member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service, on attaining the age of 58 years by invoking proviso to Section 3(1-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short, the Act')-2. The petitioner's date of birth is 11-7-1947. He joined judicial service of the State of Andhra Pradesh as District Munsif on 16-8-1976. He was promoted as Sub-Judge on 31-8-1987, as District and Sessions Judge Grade-II with effect from 6-1-1992 and as District and Sessions Judge, Grade-I with effect from 8-4-2002. In terms of the substantive part of Section 3(1A) of the Act, as amended on 22-7-1998, he would have retired from service on 31-7-2007, but, on the recommendations made by High Court, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD442; 2006(5)ALT361
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.PART-I INTRODUCTION:1. This common Judgment shall dispose of these petitions involving common questions for consideration. There are mainly three categories of petitioners. First category of petitioners (W.P. Nos. 9458, 10491, 10304 and 10773 of 2005) are the wholesale merchants of Vijayawada, who are also members of a society called Vijayawada Wholesale Commercial Complex Members Welfare Society (Merchants Association, for brevity). The petitioners in this sub-group are also members of their respective trade associations. Second category of cases is filed by the wholesale merchants, who are allegedly not members of the Merchants Association, but they are members of their respective trade associations. Vijayawada Daily Parcel Lorry Office Owners Welfare Association and other Lorry transporters filed third category of cases. The alleged restraint imposed on the right to carry on business by seizingtheir respective business places/shops brought them together for redres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ShimLC135
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the public interest by some residents of villages Batamandi and Ganguwala questioning the legality and propriety of the expansion of the existing fermentation plant of respondent No. 4 at Ganguwala for manufacture of bulk drugs and setting up of a new formulation plant at Batamandi by respondent No. 4 M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. The challenge is on various grounds. According to the petitioners, the respondents have violated various provisions of law. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 4 has not only violated the law but has started the construction without any legal and valid permission. According to the petitioners in case the plant is set up it shall cause huge amount of pollution leading to environmental degradation. During the course of the proceedings some Gram Panchayats of the area were permitted to join as interveners in the matter. When the petition was initial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
G. Anantharaman, Member 1.1. As a part of ongoing surveillance activity by SEBI into the various aspects of working of securities market, SEBI had initiated probe and advised BSE and NSE to look into the dealings in the shares issued through Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) before the shares are listed on the stock exchanges. For the purpose of the examination, the off-market transactions data as obtained from the depositories were provided by SEBI to the stock exchanges. In October 2005, the stock exchanges submitted their preliminary observations on the IPO of Yes Bank Ltd. (YBL) which hinted at the possibility of large scale off-market transactions immediately following the date of allotment and prior to the listing on the stock exchanges. SEBI therefore carried out a preliminary scrutiny by calling for data from the depositories and the Registrar to the Issue (RTI). It was found that large number of multiple dematerialized accounts with common addresses were opened by a few entitie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)292ITR268(Chd.)
1. In this case, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal for asst. yrs.1990-91 to 1992-93 in ITA No. 1333/Chd/1994, ITA Nos. 944 and 1591/Chd/1995 vide order dt. 22 Nov., 1996 held that deduction under Section 80M is permissible on the net dividend to be determined after deducting proportionate administrative expenses and also deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) from the gross dividend. The assessee's appeal against the decision of the Tribunal is pending in the High Court. In the present case, the assessee made a request for constitution of the Special Bench in respect of common issue relating to computation of deduction under Section 80M as in the case of Mahavii Spinning MMs Ltd. in ITA No. 26/Chd/1996 for asst. yr. 1991-92 vide para 2 of its order the Tribunal held that no expenditure can be deducted on proportionate basis out of the common administrative expenses for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80M.The request of the assessee was accepted by the Pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra
Reported in : (2006)103ITD207Agra
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dt. 24th April, 2004 of CIT(A), Ghaziabad pertaining to 2001-02 assessment year. 1. That the authorities below have erred on facts and in law by holding that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 is not allowable in respect of the income of the bank-assessed as AOP deemed co-operative society. 2. That the authorities below have erred on facts and in law in net following the order passed by Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra in assessee's own case for asst. yr. 1998-99 in which the Tribunal held that income of the bank was exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). 3. That the authorities below have erred on facts and in law in holding that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being in the case of co-operative bank are not applicable to the Regional Rural Bank. 4. That the authorities below have erred on facts and in law in stating that the investments mentioned in the assessment order are not in accordance with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2006]132CompCas606(Guj); [2006]71SCL274(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SONGC) appellant (original applicant) has filed this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the application being Company Application No. 445 of 2000 in Company Petition No. 121 of 1995 preferred by the appellant has been rejected.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER:2.1 ONGC was initially a department of the Government of India but, in view of its expanding activities in the search for strategic and vital materials like oil, petroleum and its products it was set up as a body corporate. It is now a statutory corporation constituted by and under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act (Central Act 43 of 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act provides for the establishment of a Commission Sfor the development of petroleum and petr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cuttack
Reported in : (2006)101TTJCtk948
1. These six appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the learned CIT(A)-II, Bhubaneswar, relating to asst. yrs.1994-95 to 1998-99 and 2000-01. Since common issues are involved all the six appeals are disposed of in this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 1(a). That the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on fact and law, in holding that the loss of Rs. 4,86,70,639 on account of valuation of non-moving stores and spares, is not allowable as revenue expenditure. (b) That the learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the claim of Rs. 4,86,70,639 on account of valuation of non-moving stores and spares.3. The facts in brief are that the AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 4,86,70,639 on account of valuation of non-moving stores and spares holding that these items are neither trading items nor moving stores and spares. According to the AO, the loss can be considered as capital loss. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance holding basically that the loss ...
Tag this Judgment!