Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC959; [1985]156ITR525(SC); 1985(2)SCALE687; (1985)4SCC608; [1985]Supp3SCR565; 1986(1)LC674(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. The common question of law that arises for our determination in these appeals is:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the right or interest of an assessee in an annuity policy is exempt from wealth tax under Section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?2. The facts giving rise to the question are briefly these. Yuvraj Arminder Singh and Princess Rupinder Kumari are individual assessees being assessed to wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957(hereinafter called the Act). As regards the former the two assessment years are 1964-65 and 1965-66 for which the respective valuation dates 31.3.1964 and 31.3.1965, whereas the assessment year in the case of Princess Rupinder Kumari is 1965-66 for which the valuation date is 31.3.1965. The two assessees had purchased one annuity policy each and they claimed exemption in respect of the value of each policy in each one's assessment to wealth tax under Section 5(1)(vi) of the Act. The value of the annui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC4389; [1998]229ITR458(SC); JT1997(10)SC1; (1998)2SCC49; [1997]Supp6SCR331
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the Orissa High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission paid by the assessee-firm to Sri Rashiklal P. Rathor (individual) is allowable under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as a deduction while computing the business income of the assessee.' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on a number of businesses including sale and purchase of various commodities as well as mining. The partners of the firm were :(1) Popatlal Devram(2) Jayantilal Jagmal(3) Pragji Devram(4) Ratilal Odhayji(5) Rashiklal P. Rathor3. Popatlal is Rashiklal's father. On 1.4.1967, there was an oral partition of the share of Popatlal in the firm amongst Popatlal, his wife and his two sons including Rashiklal. The assets of Rashiklal continued to be invested in the partnership firm. Rashiklal was Karta of a smaller HUF. On 17.10.1978...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1034; (1973)1SCC216; [1973]2SCR502; [1973]31STC178(SC)
K. S. Hegde, J.1. These are appeals by certificate. They raise common questions of law for decision, and they are directed against a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court.2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The appellants are dealers in foodgrains including cereals and pulses especially split or processed foodgrains and dal. The dispute in this case centers round the question whether the Government is competent to levy sales-tax on the purchases made by the appellants of split processed foodgrains and dal under the provisions of the United Provinces Sales Tax Act, 1948 as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act (Amendment and Validation) Act. 1970 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act).3. Under the Sales Tax Act as it originally stood (which will hereinafter be referred to as the principal Act), the purchases of split or processed foodgrains and dal by dealers were sought, to be brought to tax Under Section 3-D of the principal Act read with the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(3)SC163; (2000)9SCC259; [2001]121STC40(SC)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The appellant sells diesel engine pump sets. Diesel engine pump sets are used for agricultural purposes. It was the case of the appellant that the said pump sets were exempt from sales tax by virtue of the provisions of item 13 of Schedule I of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 which, at the relevant time, read thus: 13. Agricultural Except tractors, power Implements tillers' and other implements operated by power and spare parts, accessories and component thereof.2. The Sales Tax authorities took the view that the said pump sets were not agricultural implements. The Bengal Taxation Tribunal then took the view that the said pump sets were agricultural implements and were not covered by the exception from exemption because, in its view, the words 'other implements' had to be construed in line with the words 'tractor, power-tiller' in item 13. The said Act was then amended by an Ordinance (Ordinance 1/1993) on 7th April, 1993 which was replaced by the West Beng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2022 Union of India & Anr. ....Appellants Versus M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Through Director .... Respondent WITH C.A. No.1390/2022 With C.A. No.1394/2022 With C.A. No.1417/2022 With C.A. No.1419/2022 With C.A. No.1445/2022 With C.A. No.1414/2022 With C.A. No.1402/2022 With C.A. No.1412/2022 With C.A. No.1411/2022 With 1 C.A. No.1413/2022 With C.A. No.1415/2022 With C.A. No.1418/2022 With C.A. No.1420/2022 With C.A. No.1446/2022 With C.A. No.1447/2022 With C.A. No.1409/2022 With C.A. No.1416/2022 With C.A. No.1395/2022 With C.A. No.1407/2022 With C.A. No.1406/2022 With C.A. No.1398/2022 With C.A. No.1401/2022 With C.A. No.1391/2022 With C.A. No.1403/2022 With C.A. No.1393/2022 With C.A. No.1410/2022 With C.A. No.1405/2022 With C.A. No.1397/2022 With C.A. No.1404/2022 With C.A. No.1400/2022 With C.A. No.1396/2022 2 With C.A. No.1408/2022 With C.A. No.1399/2022 And With C.A. No.1392/2022 3 JUD...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC554IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-4064 of 1999 Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Appellants Versus M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.7937 of 2019 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.512 of 2018 With Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.7936 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.6221 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.729 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1029 of 2019 With Special Leave Petition (C) No.16028 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No.4286 of 2023 1 With Civil Appeal No.5682 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.1295 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.874 of 2013 With Civil Appeal Nos. 8269-8271 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8268 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8267 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.6135 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8272 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.9458 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18600 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC4186; JT1997(9)SC83; (1998)1SCC70; [1997]Supp5SCR122; [1998]108STC150(SC)
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. The appellant, Moulin Rouge, is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Its business consists of running a restaurant at 20, Park Street, Calcutta-16. Apart from food and drink, it provides the customers with various services and amenities. The restaurant is air-conditioned. It provides upholstered cushioned seating, subdued lighting and also music. High class crockery and cutlery are provided. The restaurant also employs highly trained stewards who are well dressed. Personal and prompt individual attention is given to the customers. The customers cannot take away any food from the restaurant for home consumption. Even unused or unconsumed portions of food and drink are not allowed to be taken away by the customers. There is no sale of any food or foodstuff across the counter.2. This Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd., : [1972]2SCR937 held that a transaction between a hotelier and a visitor to a hotel was essentially ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC85; 1997(89)ELT247(SC); JT1996(11)SC283; 1996(9)SCALE457; (1997)5SCC536; [1996]Supp10SCR585; [1998]111STC467(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Significant questions concerning the refund of Excise and Customs duties collected contrary to law - in all its shades - arise for consideration in these appeals and writ petitions. They involve the correctness of certain earlier decisions of this Court, concept of unjust enrichment, interpretation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Customs Act et al. As far back as August 14, 1984, Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 1984 and the connected special leave petitions were referred to a Bench of seven Judges by a Bench of two learned Judges, since the referring Bench doubted the correctness of the five-Judge Bench decision in Sales Tax Officer, Benaras and Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal Mukundlal Saraf : [1959]1SCR1350 . When the matter came up before a seven-Judge Bench, it was brought to our notice that a seven-Judge Bench has followed the decision in Kanhaiyalal in State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10177 Of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No.25415 of 2017) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MOHIT MINERAL PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.9 OF2018MOHIT MINERAL PVT. LTD. ... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10179 Of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No.7708 of 2018) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MOHIT MINERAL PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.Leave granted.2. The validity of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 enacted by Parliament as well as the Goods and Services Tax Compensation Cess Rules, 2017, the 2 Rules framed by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 are under challenge in these cases.3. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.25415 of 2017 has been filed by the Union of India ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.21762 OF2017ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.8193/2012; C.A. No.5057/2012; C.A. No.5058/2014; C.A. No.9974/2018; C.A. No.5056/2012; C.A. No.4196/2015; C.A. No.4374/2015; C.A. No.9380/2017; C.A. No.13071/2017; C.A. No.12058/2017; C.A. No.16375/2017; C.A. No.12869/2017; C.A. No.17527/2017; C.A. No.21845/2017; C.A. No.5719/2018; C.A. No.9886/2018; C.A. No.9200/2018; C.A. No.9860/2018; C.A. No.10114/2018; C.A. No.1643/2019; C.A. No.3596/2018; C.A. No.6762/2018; C.A. No.3972/2018; C.A. No.3343/2018; C.A. No.3359/2018; C.A. No.3971/2018; C.A. No.3347/2018; C.A. No.6489/2018; C.A. No.10598/2018; C.A. No.7643/2018; C.A. No.8321/2018; C.A. No.8554/2018; C.A. No.9172/2018; C.A. No.10406/2018; C.A. No.11259/2018; C.A. No.11884/2018; C.A. No.226/2019; C.A. No.170/2019; C.A. No.2047/2019; C.A. No.2335/2019; C.A....
Tag this Judgment!