Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR1
R.M. Kantawala, C.J.1. This petition relates to a very important question regarding basic human natural rights to hold a peaceful assembly of some lawyers who are invited by individual invitations to discuss civil liberties and the rule of law while the proclamation of emergency is in operation. On December 3, 1971 the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon under Article 352(1) of the Constitution of India by a proclamation of emergency declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression. While this proclamation of emergency was in operation, on June 25, 1975 by another proclamation of emergency issued under Article 352(1) of the Constitution the President of India declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbance. After the proclamation of emergency declared by reason of danger to internal security, on June 27, 1975, the Commissioner of Police, Greate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1955)IILLJ208Bom
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition by the employees of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India, Ltd. for the issue of a writ of mandamus calling upon the State of Bombay, who are the first respondent, to refer a certain dispute to adjudication. The second respondents are the company.2. The matter arises in this way. The petitioners are some of the employees of the company and are members of the employees' union, a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Union Act. On 17 November 1953 the union sent a letter to the company putting forward certain demands relating to gratuity, paid holidays, classification of certain employees and bonus for the year November 1952 to October 1953. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the Commissioner of Labour with a request that he should intervene in the matter. The company did not send any reply to the said letter and thereupon the union wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour to commence conciliation proceedings in the matter of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ479Bom
K.T. Desai, J. * * * 1. The principal contentions urged by the petitioners are that the reasons given by Government for not referring some of the demands made by the workmen are not reasons warranted by the provisions of the Act, that in giving some of the reasons the Government has usurped the functions of an industrial tribunal and has in fact adjudicated upon some of the demands and that the Government has not, in respect of some of the demands, applied its mind to the matter. I will proceed to deal with the various items, disputes in connexion wherewith have not been referred by the Government and the grounds given in respect thereof. 2. Pay scales. - The demand of the union in connexion with pay scales is set out in Ex. A to the petition. The union demanded that the existing pay of the employees should be revised and adjusted according to the scales set out. The union further demanded that scales of pay should be made effective retrospectively from the date of joining of each empl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(Bom)149; [2009]183TAXMAN40(Bom)
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that the notices dt. 13th Dec, 1999 issued by the respondents are illegal, null and void and they seek a further relief by exercise of appropriate writs of quashing and setting aside the same.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioners are assessees and their income is assessed to income-tax. These are cases of petitioners being individual assessees. Their individual returns for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1997-98 were scrutinized. We are not concerned in this case with the assessment of income when the petitioners carry on business as partners of a partnership firm. This is a case of their individual returns of income being involved.It is further undisputed before us that from 16th Oct., 1996 to 20th Oct., 1996, a search was conducted at the residence of late Anant N. Naik and his family in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 132 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2005)196CTR(Kar)481; ILR2005KAR2758; [2005]278ITR436(KAR); [2005]278ITR436(Karn)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, at the instance of the assessee, has stated the case and has referred the following question of law for consideration and opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had not disclosed all the primary facts necessary for completing the assessment, as available with the assessee, and before completion of the original assessment and hence, the assessing officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act?'2. The assessee was carrying on the business of generating and supplying electricity in the township of Bagalkot. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee had filed its return of income on 3-11-1975, declaring the income of Rs. 32,953/- for the accounting period 1-4-1972 to 18-11-1972, on the ground that the business of the assessee firm was taken over by the Government on 13-11-1972. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2223
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This appeal is by the State of Karnataka, which is the respondent in W.P. No. 16532/1986. The parties will be referred with reference to their rankings in the Writ Petition for the sake of convenience. The Learned Single Judge has issued a Writ directing the renewal of four licences issued to the petitioner earlier, under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (shortly called 'the Act'). The facts in brief, which are summarised by the Learned Single Judge may be repeated hereinafter :2. The petitioner questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Government of Karnataka (Home Department) refusing to renew the four licences held by him which were valid upto 31-12-1984. It is not in dispute that these licences were granted to him to enable him to carry on business in the manufacture and sale of fire arms Stores situate at Sathyanarayanapet, Bellary. The Government being the Renewal Authority under the Act, the petitioner made an application for the renewal o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1990)89CTR(AP)43; [1990]182ITR242(AP)
Seetharam Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner who was a legal practitioner and was later elevated as a judge of this court in November, 1983 (since recently retired), impugns the validity of the note dated March 10, 1988, issued by the Income-tax Officer concerned under section 148 of the Income-tax Act proposing to reassess certain income on the ground that it has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1983-84. 2. Format : The assessee-petitioner returned a gross income of Rs. 2,57,571 for the assessment year 1983-84 and after claiming statutory deductions, the net income returned was Rs. 2,40,245 and on due assessment, requisite tax was paid. A notice dated March 10, 1988 was, however, issued by the Income-tax Officer, salary Circle, under section 148 of the Income-tax (for short 'the Act') proposing to reassess the income for the said assessment year, requiring him to file a return as he had reason to believe that certain income chargeable to tax for the said year has escaped assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1992]196ITR302(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The short question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the notices issued to the petitioner under section 148 of the income-tax Act, 1961, are valid. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It is carrying on business as commission agent in the market at Guntur. It also purchases and sells other agricultural produce. It is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. The assessments of the petitioner for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 were completed. The respondent issued notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act to reopen the assessment under section 147(a) for the above said years on the ground that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In response to the notices, the petitioner requested the respondent to furnish reasons for reopening the assessment. The respondent communicated the reasons by his letter dated March 27, 1987. Then the petitioner filed returns under protest and chall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1970]76ITR128(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. The assessee is a member of the family of Bhuwalkas hailing from Ratnaghar in the former State of Bikaner, now in Rajasthan. As a young man of 19 or 20 years, he came to Guntur in 1941 in the wake of his father who had already come there to participate in the management of Bhajarang Jute Mills Ltd., Guntur. To start with, he learnt some work and after some time he also joined the jute mill as an employee. For the first time, he was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 191-1-45, For that year, the items of income were few and limited, his salary being Rs. 3,345 and the interest accrued to him being Rs. 103. From October 28, 1943, however, he started his own independent business in gunnys, groundnut oil, etc. For the assessment year 1945,46, ho filed a return of income on July 19, 1945, consisting of salary of Rs. 3,737 and showing loss from business of Rs. 2,831. On March 26, 1946, however, he filed returns for the earlier assessment years 1941-42 to 1944-4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2001]255ITR1(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-bank is assailing the notices issued under Section 10 and subsequent notices issued under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 and prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records relating to the issue of the above notices and quash the said notices, holding that the issue of the said notices is illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Interest-tax Act.2. The petitioner is a nationalised bank. Its entire capital is owned by the Central Government. Under the provisions of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner is obliged to file a return disclosing its chargeable interest to tax. Accordingly, the petitioner-bank filed its returns disclosing chargeable interest under the Act for the above three assess-ment years enclosing copies of its audit...
Tag this Judgment!