Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-11-2008
1. These are the two appeals filed one by the assessee and other filed by the Revenue and both are against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi dt. 14th July, 2000. There are six grounds in the appeal of the assessee. Grounds 3 to 6 of the assessee's appeal are narrative and the issue that arises from them is whether the CIT(A) would have taken a decision based on the available facts and delete the addition of Rs. 1,61,86,880 instead of setting aside the issue relating to the alleged low GP to the files of the AO with certain guidelines. Further, the CIT(A) is directing the AO to apply the provisions of Section 92 of the IT Act and issuing certain directions in this regard. Finally, other two grounds Nos. 1 and 2 are: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of commission of Rs. 11,07,251 paid to RTP Business Enterprises, Rs. 8,500 paid to JK Traders and Rs. 8,400 paid to Technomed Services on the ground that the appellant failed to bring any evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR234; 2008(3)BomCR63; (2008)IIILLJ292Bom; 2008(3)MhLj739
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Petitioner belongs to Maratha caste by birth. She is married to a person belonging to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner claims to belong to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe by virtue of her marriage to her husband.2. The only question for determination in this Writ Petition is whether she can claim the advantages and benefits granted to Mahadev Kolis by virtue of her marriage.3. The Petitioner has relied upon a couple certificate which does not grant the benefits claimed by her. She has also relied upon the Government Resolutions (G.Rs) dated 19th October 1959 and 16th May 1966 encouraging inter-caste marriages under which she would be eligible to all concessions granted to that Scheduled Tribe.4. The Petitioner was appointed Junior Assistant by Respondent No. 3 on 29th December 2003 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe. She submitted documents for issue of Caste Certificate showing that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe which was not by birth but ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-15-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1677
Saroj Bala, J.1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-8-1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 337 of 1981 whereby convicting the accused appellant No. 1 Om Prakash under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 307/34 I.P.C. and appellants No. 2 and 3 Jai Prakash and Ram Kumar under Sections 302, 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 and five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The appeal filed on behalf of accused appellant No. 4 Ganga Ram stood abated vide order dated 9-10-2007.2. The prosecution case as unfolded at the trial was that the first informant Kela Ram (P.W.3) was a peon in Janta Junior High School, Ganjalpur and Suresh Chand (P.W. 1) was the Manager of said school. There was a dispute over the office of Manager between Suresh Chand (P.W.1) and accused appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-01-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1777
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.11.2000 of Hon'ble single Judge dismissing petitioner-appellant's (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') Writ Petition No. 24972 of 1991 this intra Court appeal under the rules of the Court has been preferred by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 5.8.1991 whereby the Director, North Central Zone, Cultural Centre, Nyay Marg, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to the 'N.C.Z.C.C.') has terminated petitioner's services giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice.2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 11/16.9.1987 as Stenographer (Hindi) attached to Deputy Director (Admin.) on consolidated pay of Rs. 1,581 per month including all allowances. The aforesaid appointment was purely temporary and terminable at any time without prior notice. On 30.7.1991 the Director, N.C.Z.C.C. published an advertisement in daily Hindi newspa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-01-2008
Reported in : [2009(1)JCR363(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 34/2006 whereby the tribunal remitted back the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration.2. The petitioner Kendriya Vidyalya Santaghan is a registered Society fully financed by the Government of India to meet the educational needs of the children of transferable Central Government employees including defence personnel and to run the school. One of such school is running at Chakradharpur. On 1.2.2003 one complaint was made by Sri Rajesh Sarangi, local guardian of Kumari Varsha Tripathi, a student of class VIII in the said school at Chakradharpur, to the Principal about the misbehaviour with his ward by the respondent Muni Lal Prasad and demanded action against him. In the complaint i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-16-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4185
ORDERS.C. Parija, J.1. This application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of cognizance dated 29-8-2003 passed by the learned S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar, in G.R. Case No. 3572 of 2000, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 294/506/384/504/34, I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20-10-2000, the informant, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint/report to the effect that on 14-10-2000 morning at 10.30 a.m. Sri Pradip Mohanty, Secretary, Dr. Moses Sukumar Das, Principal and three other teachers namely, Sri Rupa Kamal Mandal, Sri Milu Chandra Tripathy and Sri Ronald Baren, committed house trespass in his absence and abused his wife Smt. Rama Jena insulted her and threatened as to why her brothers were staying in the school campus to which she politely replied that since all of them are her own brother-in-laws, they can stay with her. But Pradip Mohanty abused her in obscene language which were witnessed by other Class-IV emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(P& H)163; [2009]178TAXMAN22(Punj& Har)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), against the order dt. 16th March, 2007 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi in ITA No. 83/Del/2005 for the asst. yr. 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-IA whereas the question before Tribunal was related to deduction under Section 80-IB?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that process of assembling carried out by the assessee is to be understood as amounting to 'manufacture' or production of an article?2. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that assembling/job work done by the assessee did not amount to manufacturing activity, which was a cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : [2009]308ITR222(P& H)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), against the order dated March 16, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 83/DEL/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80-IA whereas the question before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was related to deduction under Section 80-IB?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that process of assembling carried out by the assessee is to be understood as amounting to 'manufacture' or production of an article?2. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB which was disallowed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-16-2008
Reported in : 2008ACJ747; AIR2008SC1385; 2008(2)ALD69(SC); 2008(56)BLJR790; 2008(5)BomCR373; (2008)1CompLJ185(SC); I(2008)CPJ56(SC); 2008(1)CTC392; JT2008(1)SC399; (2008)2MLJ662(SC); 2008AIRSCW855; 2008SC1385; 2008(2)SCC1; 2008ACJ747; 2008(1)ICC705; 2008(1)SCALE442; 2008(1)LH(SC)337.
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'Commission') rejecting the appellant's complaint (O.P. No. 12/1996) under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act' for short).Undisputed facts2. On 9.5.1995, the appellant, an unmarried woman aged 44 years, visited the clinic of the first respondent (for short 'the respondent') complaining of prolonged menstrual bleeding for nine days. The respondent examined and advised her to undergo an ultrasound test on the same day. After examining the report, the respondent had a discussion with appellant and advised her to come on the next day (10.5.1995) for a laparoscopy test under general anesthesia, for making an affirmative diagnosis. 3. Accordingly, on 10.5.1995, the appellant went to the respondent's clinic with her mother. On admission, the appellant's signatures were taken on (i) admission and discharge card; (ii) consent f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1292; 2008(3)CTC97; [2008(3)JCR176(SC)]; JT2008(5)SC1; (2008)3MLJ1105(SC); 2008(5)SCALE1; (2008)6SCC1; 2008AIRSCW2899; 2008(3)Supreme331; 2008(2)LH(SC)1534
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Reservation for admission in educational institutions or for public employment has been a matter of challenge in various litigations in this Court as well as in the High Courts. Diverse opinions have been expressed in regard to the need for reservation. Though several grounds have been raised to oppose any form of reservation, few in independent India have voiced disagreement with the proposition that the disadvantaged sections of the population deserve and need 'special help'. But there has been considerable disagreement as to which category of disadvantaged sections deserve such help, about the form this help ought to take and about the efficacy and propriety of what the government has done in this regard. 2. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who presided over the Congress Expert Committee emphasized before the Constituent Assembly that the removal of socio-economic inequalities was the highest priority. He believed that only this could make India a casteless and cla...
Tag this Judgment!