Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on : Dec-30-2003
Reported in : (2005)(1)SLJ164CAT
1. Shri P.U. Venkatesan, Senior Goods Driver, Southern Railway, Bangalore Division, in the present application has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Call for the records reading to the issue of Annexure-A7 Memorandum bearing No. B/P/676/V/LR/IDT-IRT/Vol.V dated 23.10.2000 issued by the 4th respondent, Annexure-AIO bearing No. B/P/612/V/RNG/Vol. III dated 5/8.1.2001 issued by the 4th respondent and Annexure-A17 letter bearing No. P(S)676/VI/Misc./Goods Driver dated 30.7./2.8.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same. (ii) Declare that the applicant is entitled is entitled to have his seniority restored in the cadre of Goods Drivers, to his original position as in Annexure-Al communicated by the fourth respondent under letter No. B/P612/V/RNG/ Drivers dated 9.8.95. (iii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion as passenger driver on par with the 5th respondent and to be granted the consequential benefits with effect from the date of promotion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Decided on : Dec-26-2003
Reported in : (2004)84TT(JP.)at592
1. All these five appeals have been filed by the Revenue and are decided by this common order as the same issue is involved.2. The Settlement Commission had passed an order under Section 245D(1) of the IT Act in the case of Dr. Narendra Prasad on 27th Oct., 1987, for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1984-85. The Authorised Representative of the assessee refers to para 8.6 of the order. The Settlement Commission had accepted both Dr. Narendra Prasad and Dr. (Mrs.) Leela Prasad as 50:50 owner of the nursing home in respect of the rental income as well as other income shown from the nursing home for the three assessment years, i.e., 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. The Authorised Representative of the assessee wants this decision of the Settlement Commission to be followed in subsequent years also. But it is well-settled that the decision of the Settlement Commission is binding and final only for the years covered by that decision. In other years the facts considered by the Settlement Commission m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-26-2003
Reported in : II(2004)ACC394,2004ACJ1381
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. The above said application has been filed by the applicant-appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the award dated 7.12.2001 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan in M.A.C. Petition No. 64-S/2 of 1998.2. Claimant Tara Chand, respondent No. 1 herein, has filed M.A.C. Petition No. 64-S/2 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 6,12,000 on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The claimant was the driver of Canter vehicle No. HP 15-1590. On 27.9.1998 the claimant was driving the said vehicle from Kumarhati to Nahan on the highway. Bus No. HP 14-3376 being driven by Raj Kumar, the respondent No. 2 herein in a rash and negligent manner struck against the vehicle of the claimant at a place known Gandhi Gram. The claimant suffered multiple fractur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-24-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)CHN552
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of confirmation dated November 31, 2000 passed by the ld. Additional District Judge, 13th Court, South 24-Parganas, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 207 of 2000. By his judgment and decree the ld. Judge was pleased to affirm the judgment and decree dated June, 13, 2000 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 9th Court in Title Suit No. 39 of 1991.2. The plaintiff/respondent of this suit came up with this suit with the prayer for ejectment on evicting the defendant and for mesne profits etc.3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent in short is as follows.4. Plaintiff became the owner of flat No. 1D in question by virtue of purchase by a registered deed of purchase dated 22.7.1990. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff since 2nd August, 1982 in respect of the suit flat described in schedule 'A' to the plaint with fittings and fixtures described in schedule '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-23-2003
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD858; 2004(4)ALT286
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 25 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nizamabad is the appellant before this Court, The Plaintiff- respondent herein filed the above suit against the first defendant, the adopted son of one Muthyala Veerappa. Second and third defendants, who are the wife and concubine of late Veerappa respectively seeking partition of the family properties by metes and bounds into three equal shares and to allot 1/3rd share to her, she being the adoptive daughter of late Veerappa towards 1/3rd share which she is entitled to. The second defendant filed a written statement stating that the respondent herein was never taken in adoption by late Veerappa and she is the daughter of younger sister of third defendant, the concubine of late Veerappa during his lifetime. He made a provision for the stay of the third defendant-concubine by giving a house bearing Door Nos. 4-5-412 and 4-5-413 and after her death the property shall revert back to the appellant h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-23-2003
Reported in : II(2005)BC116
C.K. Buch, J.1. Both these petitions have been moved invoking jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief by the rival parties of Special Civil Suit No. 202 of 2003 (herein after referred to as the said Suit) pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD) at Vadodara in reference to one order passed by the learned Judge below exh.39 and an order passed below exh.1- the plaint in reference to one withdrawal purshis exh.20, filed on 5.5.2003.2. The petitioner of SCA No. 14998 of 2003 is the original plaintiff of the said suit filed seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against encashing bank guarantees, wherein the plaintiff had also prayed for temporary injunction. The petitioner of SCA No. 15050 of 2003 is the original defendant no.1 no.1 in the said suit. For the sake of convenience petitioner of SCA No.14998 of 2003 is referred as plaintiff and respondent no.1 i.e. petitioner of SCA No. 15050 of 2003, is referre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Decided on : Dec-22-2003
Reported in : (2005)93ITD78(Jodh.)
1. Both these appeals pertain to same assessee for two A.Ys., namely, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and identical issues are involved in both these appeals. So, for the sake of convenience, these are being disposed off by this common order.2. We would like to mention that these appeals were taken out of turn for hearing in view of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decision while disposing off the stay application. The Hon'ble High Court gave a direction to expeditiously dispose off these appeals.3. The appellant company, namely, M/s Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd., Udaipur [hereinafter referred to as the Lessor Company] and M/s Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd., Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the Lessee Company] are the companies incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956.The lessor company had given on lease certain plant and machinery to the lessee company for both these years and had claimed depreciation.While passing the assessment orders Under Section 143(3), the ld. AO allowed the depreciation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-22-2003
D. Biswas, J.1. Income-tax Appeal No. 29 of 2001 and Income-tax Appeal No. 31 of 2001 under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act 1961, were admitted for hearing on the following common questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in not upholding the order of the first appellate authority which had confirmed the Assessing Officer's order disallowing the claim of investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the nursing home/hospital of the assessee is not an industrial undertaking ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the decision of the Tribunal in directing deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. : [1991]192ITR287(Delhi) as erroneous and perverse ?'3. The assessee, M/s. Down Town Hospital Limited, is a nursing home situated at Mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Decided on : Dec-20-2003
Reported in : (2004)91TTJ(Chd.)1044
By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the revenue filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, for the assessment year 1996-97.1. The order dated 2-3-2001, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal No. 15/P/1999-2000 is bad in law and on facts, the same has been passed without proper application of mind.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has misled herself in coming to conclusion that the trust was existing solely for charitable purposes when no income was utilised for achieving the objectives of the trust.Further, the requirement for claiming exemption under section 11(l) of the Income Tax Act is not fulfilled.3. (i) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has misdirected herself in admitting the additional evidence without affording any opportunity to the assessing officer as provided under rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962.(ii) Although the learned Commissioner (Appeals) mentioned in her order that detailed report was submitted by Mrs. J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Decided on : Dec-20-2003
Reported in : (2004)90ITD569(Chd.)
1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the Revenue filed against the order of the CIT(A), Chandigarh for the assessment year 96-97. 1. The order dated 02.03.2001 passed by the learned CIT(A) in Appeal No. 15/P/99-2000 is bad in law and on facts, the same has been passed without proper application of mind. 2. The learned CIT(A) has misled herself in coming to conclusion that the Trust was existing solely for charitable purposes when no income was utilised for achieving the objectives of the Trust. Further the requirement for claiming exemption Under Section 11(1) of the I.T. Act, is not fulfilled. 3. i) The learned CIT(A) has misdirected herself in admitting the additional evidence without affording any opportunity to the Assessing Officer as provided under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. ii) Although the learned CIT(A) mentioned in her order that detailed report was submitted by Mrs. Jyoti Rani, the then Assessing Officer on this written arguments of the appellant v...
Tag this Judgment!