Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1938; (1986)58CTR(SC)188; [1986]161ITR733(SC); 1986(2)SCALE100; (1986)3SCC655; [1986]3SCR408
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These two appeals were heard together. Civil Appeal No. 1665 of 1974 arises from the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Income-Tax Reference No. 195 of 1971.2. The assessee, Elgin Mills Ltd., at the relevant time, was a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of textile goods. The assessment year involved is the year 1964-65 of which the relevant previous year ended on 30th September, 1963) For the purposes of assessment under the provisions of Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964, a dispute arose between the assessee and the revenue with regard to the computation of 'Standard deductions'. The company claimed that the following amounts should be treated as reserves for the purposes of computation of its capital:(a) Investment Reserve-Rs. 85,00,000(b) Rehabilitation reserve-Rs. 40,00,000(c) Forfeited Dividend reserve-Rs. 96,3743. The Income-tax Officer did not include any of the said 'reserves' in the capital of the assessee-compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)58CTR(SC)183; [1986]161ITR741(SC); 1986(2)SCALE112; (1986)3SCC662; [1986]3SCR398; 1986(2)LC485(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In Civil Appeal No. 1546 of 1974 the following items were involved: (a) Capital Reserve (b) Stocks and stores reserves, (c) Bad and doubtful debts reserves, (d) Obsolescence reserve, (e) Loans and Insurance reserve (f) Investment reserve and (g) Forfeited moneys reserves. The question was whether these were to be included in the computation of capital according to the provisions in the second schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.2. Under Section 4 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, every company shall be charged for every assessment year commencing from 1st April, 1963 a tax as Super Profits tax in respect of so much of its chargeable profit of the previous year as exceed the standard deductions at the rate or rates specified in the third schedule. 'Standard deduction' had been defined in Clause (9) of Section 2 as follows:An amount equal to six per cent of the capital of the company as computed in accordance with the provisions of the second schedule;...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1905; (1987)ILLJ219SC; 1986(2)SCALE207; (1986)3SCC506; 1986(2)LC513(SC)
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The services of Smt. Kusum Gupta, who was originally appointed as a clerk in the respondent Corporation on July 25, 1974, were terminated on August 7, 198C by an Office Order running as follows :Office OrderThe services of Mrs. Kusum Gupta working as Sales Assistant in Haryana Emporium, New Delhi are no longer required by the Corporation with immediate effect. She will be paid one month's pay plus allowances in lieu of notice period.Sd/-P.R. KaushikManaging DirectorDated 7.8.1980.Endst. No. HIEC/Estt./6165Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to :1. General Manager, Marketing They are required to 2. Company Secretary issue no dues certificate 3. Controller of Accounts in favour of Mrs. 4. General Manager, Kusum Gupta, Sales New Delhi Emporium Asstt. immediate. 5. Mrs. Kusum Gupta, Sales Assistant,New Delhi Emporium, New Delhi. General Managerfor Managing Director'It is admitted that the 'one month's pay plus allowance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1736,1986CriLJ1606,1986(2)SCALE123,(1986)3SCC594
Order O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. In this petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus the principal question argued before us was that ground numbers 3 and 4 mentioned in the communication dated January 6, 1986 were totally baseless as there was no material to support the allegation that it was the petitioner that had sent the delegation consisting of Kiran Kumar Chhetri and others to approach the embassies of China, Pakistan, Bangla Desh and U.S.A. in Kathmandu and that Kiran Kumar Chhetri and others had presented the memorandum dated October 15, 1985 under the petitioner's guidance to the Prime Minister of India seeking to make Sikkim an independent country. We do not find any real substance in this submission. The crux of the allegation in ground Nos. 1 and 2 was that he was a leader of Naya Sikkim Party, that as the leader of the party he had addressed public meetings at various places and times condemning the merger of Sikkim with India, pleaded for the establishment of Sikkim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1805; (1986)58CTR(SC)179; [1986]161ITR524(SC); JT1986(1)SC2; 1986(2)SCALE142; (1986)3SCC641; [1986]3SCR390; 1986(2)LC493(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court answering the following question in the negative:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the extra amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 7,24,914 was income arising or accruing to the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1956-57.2. The assessee, who is the respondent before us, is a limited company dealing in land. It maintains its accounts on the mercantile system. By an order dated June 21, 1946 under Rule 75A(1) of the Defence of India Rules read with Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 certain plots of land measuring about 19.17 acres in village Kankulia in the District of 24 Parganas and belonging to the assessee, were requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal. Subsequently the land was acquired permanently in the State Government under Section 5, Requisition of Land (Continuance of Powers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1833; 1988LabIC107; (1987)2SCC543
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The impugned order of termination of service cannot be sustained having regard to the law laid down by this Court in Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt, of India : (1984)ILLJ337SC ; Indra Pal Gupta v. Managing Committee, Model Inter College, Thora : [1984]3SCR752 . The appeal must therefore be allowed and the impugned order of termination must be quashed and set aside. As a consequential relief we will have to reinstate the appellant. However, complications will arise inasmuch as there is only one post of Assistant Agronomist. And as someone else has already been appointed to the said post his service may have to be terminated in order to make room for the appellant as appellant cannot be appointed on any other post in view of his special qualifications. Since the appellant does not insist on reinstatement, if he is awarded compensation in lieu thereof, payment of lump sum compensation will solve the problem to the satisfaction of both the sides. Having regard to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1907; 1986LabIC1803; 1986(2)SCALE138; (1986)3SCC501; [1986]3SCR383; 1986(2)LC473(SC)
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Does that part of the provision which provides for payment of a larger amount of gratuity with prospective effect from the specified date offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Whether gratuity must be paid on the stepped up basis, to all those who have retired before the date of the upward revision, with retrospective effect, even if the provision provides for prospective operation, in order not to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India? A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh says 'no'. In our opinion it rightly says so. The petitioners, erstwhile Government employees who had retired 'before' April 1, 1978, inter alia claimed and contended before the High Court that they were entitled to the benefit to the Government order No. 88 dated 26 March, 1980 providing that :(b) Retirement gratuity may be 1/3rd of pay drawn at the time of retirement for every 6 monthly service subject to maximum of 20 months pay limited to Rs. 30,000.The said o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1910; 1986(2)SCALE136; (1986)3SCC652; [1986]3SCR378; 1986(2)LC477(SC)
Acts/Rules/Orders: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 - Section 15(1); Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1960Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated August 21, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 378 of 1963 and From the Judgment and Order dated December 3, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1721 of 1976Citing Reference: Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana DiscussedAmir Singh v. Ram Singh Discussed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC191; JT1986(1)SC23; 1986(2)SCALE146; (1986)4SCC106
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ.1. This writ petition has come up for hearing in view of certain 45 developments which have taken place since the making of our last Order. It was on the basis of a letter addressed by the petitioners that this writ petition came to be entertained by the Court. The petitioners pointed out in the letter which was treated as a writ petition that the conditions in which girls were living in the Government Protective Home at Agra were abominable and they were being denied their right to live with basic human dignity by the State of Uttar Pradesh which was running the Protective Home. The Court thereupon made various orders from time to time with a view to improving the living conditions of the girls in the Protective Home and ensuring a decent and healthy standard of living for them. The Court also asked the District Judge to make periodic inspections of the Protective Home with a view to monitoring full and effective implementation of the various Orders made by the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1737; 1986(10)ECC106; 1986(25)ELT861(SC); (1987)1MLJ5(SC); 1986(2)SCALE94; (1986)3SCC531
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Coromondal Fertilisers Limited, under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and is directed against the order dated April 11, 1984 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'. By the said order the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order dated July 1, 1982 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated February 20, 1980, confirming the demand for Rs. 60,34,419.56 raised on the appellant.2. The appellant carries on the business of manufacture of chemical fertilisers and, for that purpose, the appellant requires Mono-Ammonium Phosphate which, it is said, is not manufactured in India. At the material time an importer of Mono-Ammonium Phosphate was liable to pay customs duty as per sub-item 3 of Item 31.02/05 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The rate of d...
Tag this Judgment!