Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2002
Reported in : (2002)81ITD160(Delhi)
1. The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt 29th Dec., 1998, pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95. The first ground of appeal relates to deduction under Section 80-O of the Act.2. The assessee-company provides professional services in the field of medicines. It is headed by Dr. N.P.S. Chawla and Dr. (Miss) Devjit Kinberlay Chawla, as directors. The assessee-company got the necessary expertise in the matter of providing emergency medical assistance to any person anywhere in India on call. It has on its own panel several qualified doctors who always remain on call, provide necessary medical services wherever required and give professional information to foreign insurers. It is patronised by almost all the insurance companies in the world and some important select embassies of foreign countries, though no formal agreement exist in some of the cases. After providing required treatment they are also provided qualified doctor to escort them back to their dest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2002
Reported in : (2002)75TTJ(Del)343
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeal has been filed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 29-12-1998, pertaining to assessment year 1994-95. The first ground of appeal relates to deduction under section 80-O of the Act.2. The assessed- company provides professional services in the field of medicines. It is headed by Dr. N.P.S. Chawla and Dr. (Miss) Devjit Kinberlay Chawla, as directors. The assessed- company got the necessary expertise in the matter of providing emergency medical assistance to any person anywhere in India on call. It has on its own panel several qualified doctors who always remain on call, provide necessary medical services wherever required and give professional information to foreign insurers. It is patronised by almost all the insurance companies in the world and some important select embassies of foreign countries, though no formal agreement exist in some of the cases. After providing required treatment they are also provided qualifie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-11-2002
Reported in : (2002)2UPLBEC1440
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. Glories are the ways to come in limelight or to hit the headlines of news daily, may be in the field of Science, Art, Culture, Law or bravery but for all such achievement one has to play long innings. Here is a petitioner who wants to hit the columns of the news papers and come in limelight through shortcut by filing a writ petition before this Court without doing any preparation and sincere efforts though he is a journalist by profession.2. This Court has certain obligation towards the society while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly with respect to Public Interest Litigation. The Courts have further shown their sense of responsibility by dealing with such matters so that the concept of the Public Interest Litigation shall not be diluted. Whenever a Public Interest Litigation is filed the responsibility is not of the petitioner alone, the same is equally shared by the member of the Bar who represents the petitioner and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-07-2002
Reported in : (2002)2CALLT531(HC)
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This writ petition is made challenging imposition of luxury tax under the W.B. Luxury Tax Act, 1994 in respect of imported Vanaspati from Nepal.2. The contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of the Treaty of Transit, Treaty of Trade and Agreement of co-operation to control unauthorised trade between His Majesty's Government of Nepal and the Government of India the internal taxation charges of the movement of the primary products of either contracting party to any market destinations in the territory of the other shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to the movement of its own primary products within its territory. The Vanaspati is one of such product for which the petitioners are paying more revenue.3. In exercise of power conferred by Sub-section 1 of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Central Government has given a general exemption under certain goods and effective rate of duty for imports from Nepal under General Exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-2002
Reported in : (2002)(146)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed of Rs. 14,26,266/- was granted and the appeal was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants supplied lubricating oils to foreign going vessels as ship stores in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which permitted such export without payment of duty on appropriate bonds being filed. Although such exports were made under bond for a number of years vide three show cause notices it was alleged that the facility was not available and therefore demand for duty as mentioned above was made covering the period December, 1998 to December, 2000. The duties were confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner on the ground that in terms of Notification 44/94-C.E., dated 22-9-1994 lubricating oils was shown to be a commodity eligible for export under claim for rebate in terms of Rule 12. He observed that there was no specific notification under Rule 13 for export of ship stores under bond. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : [2002]122TAXMAN532(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.Whether there is anything wrong in the decision dated 24-4-1990 taken by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') not to allow the advocates to practise as company secretaries is the principal question in these two writ petitions and, therefore, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 398 of 1990 Shri T.U. Khatri is the petitioner. According to Shri Khatri, he was granted certificate to practise law by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30-6-1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passed final examination conducted by the Institute and was admitted as an associate member of the Institute with effect from 30-10-1970. Subsequently, Shri Khatri was made fellow member of the Institute with effect from 23-8-1976. Upon application made by Shri Khatri to the Institute and upon fulfilment of requisite conditions including the no objection from the Bar Council of Maharash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : I(2002)ACC680; 2002ACJ680; AIR2002SC1402; 2002(3)ALD1(SC); 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)926; 2002(3)ALT38(SC); JT2002(3)SC16; 2002(3)MhLj1; 2002(4)MPHT103; 2002MPLJ515(SC); 2002(2)SCALE
ORDER1. Issue notice in SLP (C) ..... ..... CC Nos. 1911and 2228/2002. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Advocate, on behalf of Ms. AniiKatiyar, Advocate, accepts notice for the Union of India.2. Delay is condoned.3. Leave is granted in all the SLPs.4. These five appeals arise out of the orders of the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in different Misc. Appeals onOctober 30, 2000. The claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal(for short 'the Tribunal') is the appellant.5. The common question to be considered by us relates tomaintainability of a review petition before the Tribunal against anappealable order passed by it.6. To appreciate the issue involved it would suffice to refer to thefacts in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4413/2001. The appellanttransported bamboo chips through Indian Railways to different millsin India. It is alleged that higher freight was paid by it to the Railwayson the basis of rationalisation of the fares on the ground thattransportation would be by a longe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom268; 2002(3)ALLMR27; 2002(4)BomCR733; (2002)3BOMLR847
R.M. Lodha, J.1 .Whether there is anything wrong in thedecision dated 24th April, 1990 taken by theInstitute of Company Secretaries of India not toallow the Advocates to practise as CompanySecretaries is the principal question in these twoWrit Petitions and,therefore, these Writ Petitionswere heard together and are disposed of by thiscommon judgment.2. In Writ Petition No.398 of 1990Shri T.U.Khatri is the Petitioner. According toShri Khatri he was granted certificate to practiselaw by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30thJune, 1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passedfinal examination conducted by the Institute ofCompany Secretaries of India( for short theInstitute) and was admitted as an AssociateMember of the Institute w.e.f. 30th October,1970. Subsequently Shri Khatri was made FellowMember of the Institute w.e.f. 23rd August, 1976.Upon application made by Shri Khatri to theInstitute and upon fulfilment of requisiteconditions including the No Objection from the BarCouncil of Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-01-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2918
J.C. Gupta, J.1. All the four above named appellants have been sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Surendra Singh son of Rajvir Singh aged about 26 years. Appellant Rakesh has further been sentenced to two years R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/- for causing injuries to Smt. Krishna Devi, P.W.2, the mother of deceased Surendra Singh.2. As per the prosecution case incident occurred on 13-6-1992 at about 8 p.m. near the house of Amilal in village Mithli within the area of police station Baghpat, which was then in District Meerut. Appellants Ram Kumar, Jai Prakash and Devesh Kumar were said to be armed with country made pistols while appellant Rakesh and co-accused Parvendra with PHARSA and SPEAR respectively. It is alleged that all the accused persons caused as many as 19 injuries to Surendra Singh from their respective weapons. Shrieks and cries of Surendra Singh attracted his mother Smt. Krishna Devi, P.W.2 and brother Udai Singh to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2002
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)148; 97(2002)DLT756; 2003(1)SLJ111b(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1.The petitioner in this case was a Gunner working in the office of respondent No.3. He proceeded on 36 days's annual leave from 26 th January 1992 to 3rd March 1993. The said leave was allegedly sanctioned by the respondent No.3. Allegedly, while availing the said leave, he fell into a 'Khud' in his village on 26 the February 1992, as a consequence whereof, he sustained contusion in his right leg. He was taken to the nearby doctor at Thural, Himachal Pradesh and he was under his treatment from 26 the February 1992 to 9 the March 1992. He allegedly was admitted to the Government Medical College at Thural wherein also he remained under treatment from 10 th March 1992 to 15 th 1992. A purported information to the said effect was sent tot he Commanding Officer of the Unit of the petitioner. The petitioner rejoined his duties on 23rd April 1992 and produced his medical certificate. On 25th April 1992, he was informed that he would be tried by a Summary Court Martial.The cha...
Tag this Judgment!