Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1325; (1992)108CTR(SC)275; [1993]199ITR43(SC); 1992(2)SCALE867; (1993)1SCC249; [1992]Supp2SCR153
..... prescribed percentage of the value of the assets used for the purposes of business. the second allowance was not there in the 1922 act originally and was introduced by the income-tax (amendment) act, 1946. the introduction was of certain allowances in respect of expenditure on 'scientific research related to the business', an expression which was ..... ) and was answered against the department. on the basis of such allegations the petitioners attempted to make out that the department's interpretation was patently untenable and that the 1980 amendment is not in the nature of a statutory clarification of an ambiguity but a totally new and fresh imposition sought to be unjustifiably given retrospective ..... proviso to section 10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 act and reproduced in clauses (iv) and (v) of section 35(2) of the 1961 act.9. before us it is claimed on behalf of the assessee that this interpretation of the statutory provisions is very clear, patent and unambiguous. it is alleged that, despite this, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1947; 2003(5)ALT82(SC); 2003(3)SCALE54; (2003)5SCC350; [2003]2SCR781
..... by reason of the impugned judgment the said appeals were dismissed. the appellant is, thus, in appeal before us.5. by reason of the constitution 32nd amendment act, a special provision by way of article 371-d of the constitution of india was inserted in respect of the state of andhra pradesh relating to both employment ..... through gajendragadkar, j. struck down the government order impugned therein describing it as a fraud on the constitution and the action of the executive was characterized as 'patently and plainly outside the limits of the constitutional authority conferred on the state'.21. in n.m. thomas v. state of kerala : (1976)illj376sc , it ..... for 15% open seats also. a review application filed by the appellant herein before the learned single judge was dismissed. thereafter, the appellant preferred a letters patent appeal before the division bench questioning the said order of the learned single judge. the division bench, however, noticing conflict in some decisions on the question .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3020; (2005)4CompLJ440(SC); (2005)194CTR(SC)428; 2005(99)ECC377; 2005(182)ELT33(SC); [2005]274ITR194(SC); JT2005(Suppl3)SC389; (2005)4SCC214; 2006[3]STR608; 200
..... service tax rules, 1994 had been displaced or removed.21. as we read the decision in laghu udhyog bharati, the basis was the patent conflict between sections 65, 66 , 68(1) and 71 of the finance act, 1994 as amended in 1997 on the one hand and rules 2(1) (d) (xii) and (xvii) of the service tax rules 1994 on the other ..... . each of these sections of the finance act 1994 as amended in 1997 proceeded on the basis that the tax was imposable on the person providing the service. all the other sections regarding the liability to furnish returns, assessments, penalties ..... of goods under entry 54 list ii to name a few. theoretically, of course, as we have held in godfrey phillips india ltd. v. state of u.p. and ors. : (2005)194ctr(sc)257 , ultimately even a tax on goods will be on the taxable event of ownership or possession. we need not go into this question except to emphasise that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC632; (1965)0PLR563; [1965]1SCR82
..... to protected by art. 31-a. similarly, in ram narain medhi v. state of bombay [1959] supp 1 s.c.r. 489 the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands (amendment) act 1956 (which amended bombay act lxvii of 1948) was in question. it sought to distribute equitably the lands between the landlords and tenants by way of compulsory purchase of all surplus lands by tenants ..... other two appeals arise from other writ petitions. writ petition no. 761 of 1957 (civil appeal no. 553 of 1962) was dismissed by grover j. against whose decision a letters patent appeal was filed. writ petition no 454 of 1958 (civil appeal no. 554 of 1962) was heard by the bench which heard the said letters ..... patent appeal and both were dismissed on august 18, 1960. the high court did not certify the judgments as fit for appeal but the appellants obtained special leave and civil appeals .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC636; (1981)1SCC597; [1981]2SCR287; 1981(13)LC48(SC)
..... material part of sub-section (1) of section 5, which reads thus :(1) on and from the commencement of the uttar pradesh imposition of ceiling on land holdings (amendment) act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout uttar pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him.explanation i.-in ..... ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account.explanation ii is not material for our present purpose.12. the amendment act, 1972 (act no. 18 of 1973) (for short called the ceiling act) came into force with effect from june 8, 1973. it is clear that the crucial date on or from which no tenure-holder is ..... u.p. (amendment) act. no. 18 of 1973 came into force. a transfer, therefore, made after january 24, 1971 which is designed to serve as a cloak for retention of a right or interest of the transferor in the ostensibly transferred land in excess of the ceiling area, even on or after june 8, 1973, will be patently not in 'good .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(3)CTC741; [2005(106)FLR190]; JT2005(5)SC170; (2005)IILLJ831SC; (2005)3MLJ146(SC); (2005)5SCC1; (2005)2UPLBEC1387
..... been brought into force because notification to bring those provisions into effect has not been issued in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 1 of the amendment act. the amended definition thus remains on the statute uninformed for a period now of more than 23 years.6. on behalf of the employers, it is pointed out that ..... book. the government has been experiencing difficulty in bringing into effect the new definition. issuance of notification as required by sub-section 2 of sub-section 1 of amendment act, 1982 has been withheld so far. it is, therefore, high time for the court to reexamine the judicial interpretation given by it to the definition of ' ..... that upsetting the law settled by bangalore water is neither expedient nor desirable.8. it is pointed out that earlier an attempt was made to seek enforcement of the amended act through this court [see : aeltemesh rein v. union of india : (1960)illj251sc ]. the union came forward with an explanation that for employees of the categories .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1361; (1977)3SCC592; [1978]1SCR1
..... challenged in a court of law. and, i am saying so notwithstanding the provision contained in clause (5) of the said article introduced by the constitution (38th amendment) act, 1975. in support of the divergent views canvassed before us either in relation to the proclamation of emergency under article 352 or a proclamation under article 356, extreme ..... lie within the executive discretion. such discretion is governed by a large element of policy which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of courts except in cases of patent or indubitable mala fides or excess of power. its exercise rests on materials which are not examinable by courts. indeed, it is difficult to imagine how the ..... under article 356(1) unless and until resort to the provision, in a particular situation, is shown to be so grossly perverse and unreasonable as to constitute patent misuse of this provision an excess of power on admitted facts. on the allegations before us we cannot reach such a conclusion. and, it is not for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1937; (1979)4SCC429; [1980]1SCR354; 1980(12)LC312(SC)
..... to article 136 of the travancore limitation regulation) is not the proper article to be applied to such a suit where the transfer of property act, as amended by the amending act of 1929, was not in force. in taking this view, the learned judge declined to follow the decision of the travancore cochin high court.12. ..... aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the learned; single judge, the plaintiff preferred a letters patent appeal. the appeal was ultimately heard by a full bench of three ..... of conflicting and confusing decisions rendered on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the transfer of property act, 1882, as they stood before the amendment of 1929, we may say at once that even where the transfer of property act was not in force, a redeeming co-mortgagor discharging the entire mortgage debt, which was the joint .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC349; (1969)2SCC429; [1970]1SCR803
..... under section 15(2) of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 as amended by the punjab pre-emption amendment act, 1960. the suit was dismissed. smt. jai kaur filed an appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent of the high court. relying on an amendment made by the punjab pre-emption amendment act 1964 in the first paragraph of clause (b) ..... of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the punjab pre-emption act, hereinafter called the act, the division bench reversed the judgment of the single ..... even from another wife.5. if the above discussion is kept in view there is no difficulty in attributing a retroactive intention to the legislature when the amendment act of 1964 was enacted. it is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declares the previous law retroactive operation would be more rightly ascribed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1918; JT1994(2)SC215; 1994(2)SCALE37; (1994)3SCC1; [1994]2SCR644
..... leaving to the parliament to ponder over and if deemed necessary amend article 356 suitably.315. the constitution was amended more than 77 times and article 356 itself was amended six times through the constitution section 38th amendment act; 42nd amendment act: 44th amendment act; 59th amendment act; 64th amendment act and 68th amendment act. apart from the congress party, three non congress political parties were ..... exercise of this power. the court can interfere only when the power is used in a grossly perverse and unreasonable manner so as to constitute patent misuse of the provisions or to an abuse of power. the same idea is expressed at another place saying that 'a constitutionally or legally prohibited ..... anything contained in clause (2) of article 48' would be rendered redundant as if it was no part of the constitution. it is obvious and patent that no letter or part of a provision of the constitution can be said to be redundant or non-existent under any principle of construction of .....
Tag this Judgment!