Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(Uttranchal)670; [2005]278ITR47(Uttaranchal)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dated February 28, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 1723/Delhi of 1995.2. Mr. B. Bruson, the respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Reading and Bates Exploration Co., which in the year under consideration executed contracts in India. During the year under consideration, the respondent was in employment of this company and thus derived income from 'salaries' from it.The questions raised before us are as follows :Questions:'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the salary paid to the assessee for the off period outside India was not chargeable to the Indian Income-tax Act in terms of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has itself held, vide ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3109(UHC)
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to pay the salary to the petitioner No. 1 in C. T. Grade with effect from 12.1.1987 and in L.T. grade with effect from 12.1.1992 and to the petitioner No. 2 in C.T. grade with effect from 18.1.1987 and in L.T. grade with effect from 18.1.1992.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers in B.T.C. grade in the Bhawani Balika Inter College, Ballupur, Dehradun. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 12.1.1982 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 18.1.1982. The petitioners have submitted that after completing five years of service they were entitled for promotion in the C.T. grade as per Regulation 7 (2) of Chapter 2 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The petitioners were qualified teachers and they were entitled to be promoted in C.T. grade after completing five years service and fur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR130]; (2004)2UPLBEC69
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Award dated 13.9.2001, passed by the Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Annexure-1 to this writ petition.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Respondent No. 1 was working as Fire-watchcr/Chaukidar in the Forest Department from 1.4.1991 but he was removed from service on 20.4.1995. His case was referred to the Labour Court vide notification dated 1.8.2001 for adjudication. The following disputed was referred for adjudication :D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius deZpkjh Jh jktikyflag iq= Jh eaxywflag dh lsok;sa fnukad 20-4-95 ls lekIr fd;k tkukvuqfpr@voS/kkfud gS ;fn gk rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks'k ikusdk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdl vU; fooj.k ds lkFk4. Respondent No. 1 has claimed that since he has worked for more than 240 days ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : [2004]140TAXMAN405(NULL)
ORDERThis is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the revenue against the judgment and order dated 27-4-2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 1346/Delhi/ 1993.2. Mr. Spencer, J, respondent is a non-resident foreign technician employed by a foreign company, Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. which, in the year under consideration, executed contracts in India. During the year under consideration, respondent was in employment of this company and thus derived income from 'salaries' from it.3. The questions raised before us are as follows:Questions:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was legally justified in holding that the salary paid to the assessee for the off period outside India was not chargeable to Indian Income Tax Act in terms of section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 196 1, whereas the learned ITAT has itself held, vide order dated 25-3-1992 in ITA No. 5649/D/92, dated 28...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2010)29VST265(NULL)
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The revision petitioner, i.e. M/s Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'TCIL'), is a Government of India undertaking, which is controlled by the Ministry of Telecommunications. While the head office of the revision petitioner's business is located in New Delhi, it has a branch office in Dehradun, presently in the State of Uttarakhand (earlier in the State of Uttar Pradesh). The revision petitioner is carrying on the business of providing and establishing telecommunication networks. TCIL is registered under the State Trade Tax Act and the Central Trade Tax Act with the Trade Tax Office, Dehradun.2. On 01.11.1988, the revision petitioner entered into an agreement with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'ONGC') for installation of two EPABX systems along with allied accessories and spare parts, on rent and guarantee basis. The equipment contemplated under the said agreement was not available with the TCIL...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. After the decision of the Union Cabinet dated 02.11.2000, whereby 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting was permitted in India, prohibition on the reception and distribution of television signals in Ku Band was withdrawn by the Department of Telecommunications, through a notification dated 09.01.2001. In order to give effect to the decision of the Cabinet, as also, the notification issued by the Department of Telecommunications, referred to above, guidelines dated 15.03.2001 were issued laying down the procedure for obtaining licences for providing 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting service in India on 15.03.2001. In the aforesaid guidelines, the conditions of eligibility were also prescribed.2. In so far as the procedural aspect of the matter is concerned, interested parties were to be required to submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. If the applicant was found eligible (for setting up a 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) platform in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The present special appeal has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the judgment dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 180 of 2008 (M/S) by which the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector under Section 166 & 167 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the UPZA & LR Act).2. The facts leading to the filing of the Special Appeal is that Dr. Vijay Singh Pal and Arun Singh, belonging to the Scheduled Tribes community, sold plot Nos. 15, 16 and 17 measuring 15 naali and 12 muthi (0.315 hectares) by means of a sale deed dated 24.04.1996 to the writ petitioner M/s Ski & Snow Resorts Pvt. Ltd., which is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and which is engaged in tourism and hospitality business. Subsequent to the sale deed, the land was declared non-agriculture under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act, u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2009Utr31; (2009)26VST649(NULL)
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. In all the above three writ petitions, levy of entertainment tax under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, on Direct to Home (for short DTH) service provided by the petitioners is challenged, and the question of law involved is the same, hence, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the parties.3. Factual matrix of these cases is that the petitioners are granted licenses under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 5 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, on payment of license fee. Their case is that DTH service is different to that of one provided by the cable operators. It is pleaded by the petitioners that the DTH services are provided by them by using satellite system that transmits programmes and provides T.V. signals directly to subscriber's premises. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC75; 2005(2)AWC1475(UHC)
Rajesh Tandon, J.1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and award dated 8.7.1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Pauri Garhwal, for grant of compensation on account of death of Sri Tirath Singh in a motor vehicle accident on 25.11.1995 at 5.00 p.m. at village Teka near Kanshkhet, district Pauri Garhwal involving Bus No. UTS 1021. The claimants alleged that on the date of accident the deceased was going with a marriage party. When the ill-fated bus reached near village Teka, it had stopped to take some more baraties. The deceased Tirath Singh Rawat had climbed on the roof of the bus to load luggage of those baraties. Soon he was coming down from the roof of the bus, the driver without any signal started the bus due to which the deceased fell down and he sustained grievous injuries. Immediatel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. These two appeals, under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), have been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 21.10.1997, passed by learned Sessions, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1995 and Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1995 whereby accused/appellant, namely, Rajiv Lochan Diwedi has been convicted under Sections 304B r/w 34 of I.P.C., 498A of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for two years and simple imprisonment of six months respectively and accused/appellants, namely, Sanjay Diwedi and Ramanlata have been convicted under Sections 304B, 498A of I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years and simple imprisonment for six months respectively. Both the cases have been decided by a common judgment, by the trial court.2. Prosecution story in br...
Tag this Judgment!