Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)98ITD143(Mum.)
1. As appeals No. 2189/M/2000 and 2190/M/2000 filed by the assessee for assessment years viz. 1992-93 & 1993-94 consisting of some identical / similar common grounds of appeal, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience.For the Assessment year 1992-93 following grounds have been raised by the assessee. 1. The learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the decisions of learned Assessing Officer (Assessing Officer) in not granting the depreciation on the expenses of Rs. 50,60,433/- Incurred by the Appellant towards acquiring the right to use the lands for laying the pipelines. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation on legal and professional expenses of Rs. 65,000/- Appellant submits that the direction may please be given to allow the depredation as claimed. 3. The learned Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No(s). 28192-28193 OF2018 ADANI GAS LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.30061 OF2018 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.30062 OF2018 JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. Special leave granted. These appeals were heard with the consent of counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The appeals are directed against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court1 rejecting certain writ petitions.2. In those proceedings, the main appellant (hereafter called Adani) challenged the validity of Regulation 18 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008 (hereafter called the CGD Regulations) as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Order Dt. 1.6.13, Passed In Misc.98/11, Vide Ann-A Of The Learned Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge,Chitradurga And Etc.) 1. Order dated 01.06.2013 passed in Misc.No.98/2011 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is challenged by the petitioners - authorities of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, 'the KPTCL'). 2. Facts leading to the cose, stated in nutshell are that respondent is the owner of 5 acres 1 gunta of land bearing RS No. 156/1 situated at Babbur Village of Hiriyur Taluk in Chitradurga District. In order to transmit electricity, KPTCL has drawn 66/KV High Tension circuit line over the land of the respondent. During the course of drawing the circuit line, the authorities of the petitioner - Corporation have cut coconut trees standing in the said land. They have assessed compensation for the loss caused to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 WP.39979/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.39979/2013 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL, MAJOR, WORKS DIVISION, KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL (BESCOM) KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri.B RUDRAGOWDA, ADV.) AND DODDAKKA W/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT62YEARS AGRICULTURIST BABBU, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.1.6.13, PASSED IN MISC.98/11, VIDE ANN-A OF THE LEARNED ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,CHITRADURGA AND ETC. 2 WP.39979/2013 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER1 Order dated 01.06.2013 passed in Misc.No.98/2011 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to forbear the 2nd respondent from going ahead with the pipeline project from Narimanam to Trichy.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ 1. The petitioner, claiming to be the President of a farmer association, seeks to assail the laying of the gas pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). The project is stated to be of a pipeline to be laid at 7 feet depth with 40 feet wide and length of about 200 km from Narimanam, Nagapattinam District to Trichy District passing through the delta districts, Nagapattinam, Thanjavur and Thiruvarur. It is the case of the petitioner that farmers are apprehensive that the project may affect their livelihood and their agricultural produce. The Indian Oil Corporation is alleged not to have conducted any public hearing to remove the apprehensions over the project. 2. The petitioner claims that in view of the constitutional protection under Article 300A, the act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to provide adequate protection for the officials, labourers, machinery and t he pipelines installed by the petitioner corporation in the lands subject mater of the acquisition notification in S.O.No.865(E), dated 20.04.2012, S.O.No.1201(E), dated 25.5.2012, S.O.No.392(E), dated 07.03.2012, S.O.No.12(E), dated 04.01.2012, S.O.No.2865(E), dated 27.12.2011, S.O.No.2832(E), dated 19.12.2011 of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued notification under Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act, 1962 for the purpose of Cochi-Koottanad-Mangalore-Bangaluru Pipeline Project through the districts of Salem, Coimbatore, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri, Namakkal, Erode and Tiruppur in the State of Tamil Nadu.ORDER1. The petitioner is the Gas Authority of India Limited, represented by its Senior Manager...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10019 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.2725 of 2010) Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya & Ors. .Appellants Versus State of Gujarat & Ors. . Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL No.10020 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.2226/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10021-10050 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2228-2257/2010) and CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10051-10068 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2260-2277/2010) JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.Leave granted. These appeals take exception to the common judgment and order dated 13.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application Nos.5107 of 2008, 4321 of 2008, 824-853 of 2008 and 899-916 of 2008. Since all these appeals raise identical issues, they are dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment. The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (herein referred to as the PMP Act) was enacted by Parliament to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2013AIR(NOC)51
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.17216 of 2012, dated 26.07.2012 on the file of this Court.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2012, made in W.P.No.17216 of 2012. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner is the Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'GAIL) a public sector undertaking established as wholly owned company of Government of India. It is stated that the GAIL is a company engaged in exploration, protection, processing, transmission, distribution of natural gas and other related activities in India. It is further stated that in order to provide adequate infrastructure for the production and easy transportation of Natural Gas and Petroleum Products throughout the country, GAIL undertook to establish connectivity pipelines and also laid LPG pipelines across the country. It is stated that the advantages of City Gas Pipelines in the city of Delhi and Mumbai without...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 133(2006)DLT627; 2007(98)DRJ568
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent to lay down the pipelines for carriage of petroleum products through various plots of land of the petitioner and has sought a prohibition in laying down the pipelines in the manner as proposed by the respondents and to rationalize laying down the pipeline so as not to obstruct the petitioner from beneficial use and enjoyment of his land and to consider an alternative proposal as given by the petitioner for laying down the pipelines and quash the notification of right of user of certain areas of the land of the petitioner in plots bearing Khasra Nos. 753, 758, 759, 761, 763, 764, 765, 778/2, 793, 794 and 795 in Village Rajokri, New Delhi.2. After the petition was filed by the petitioner, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Order dated 16th November, 2005 to visit the site and submit report as to whether pipelines had been laid or only certain preparatory steps had been taken. The Local Commissioner appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)1CALLT1(SC); (1998)1GLR269; JT1997(1)SC129; 1996(9)SCALE421; (1997)2SCC42; [1996]Supp10SCR416
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Leave granted.2. Water is a mineral within the meaning of Mines Act, 1952 read with Section 2(ba) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) or not is the question raised by the respondent in this appeal.3. Appellant owns survey plot Nos. 780, 781 913/1, 914, 893, 918/223, 924/2, 923, 926 of moja Ichchapur Tehsil Choryasi, District Surat which were notified on 23.6.83 under Section 3(1) of the Act. For acquiring the right of user in those plots to enable the respondent No. 2, namely, the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, in whom the rights were ultimately vested, to lay pipelines for transporting Petroleum from one place to another, a Notification was issued under Section 3(1) of the Act on 23.6.83. This Notification was followed by Notification dated 16.1.84 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act and the right of user in the aforesaid land stood acquired for laying the pipelines. It was also indicated...
Tag this Judgment!