Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2523; [1997]226ITR625(SC); JT1997(5)SC529; 1997(4)SCALE271; (1997)5SCC482; [1997]Supp1SCR394
ORDERK. Venkataswami. J.1. In all these cases the scope of Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act') arises for consideration.2. Brief facts are necessary to appreciate the question that arises for our consideration.3. The respondent in Tax Reference Case Nos. 9-10/86 is a company and an assessee under the Act (hereinafter called the 'assessee'). It owns four flats bearing Nos. 231, 232, 241 and 242 in a building call as 'Silver Arch' on Nepeansea Road, Bombay. The builders of the said building are M/s. Malabar Industries Pvt. Ltd. Out of the four aforesaid flats, two were directly purchased by the respondent-company from the builders and the other two were purchased by its sister concern and subsequently by the assessee. The possession of the flats was taken after payment of consideration in full some time in August, 1973. It is common ground that all these flats have been let out to various persons. The rental income from these flats was included in the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)141CTR(SC)67
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. :In all these cases the scope of s. 22 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) arises for consideration.2. Brief facts are necessary to appreciate the question that arises for our consideration.The respondent in Tax Ref. Case Nos. 9-10/86 is a company and an assessee under the Act (hereinafter called the assessee). It owns four flats bearing Nos. 231, 232, 241 and 242 in a building called as 'Silver Arch' on Nepeansea Road, Bombay. The builders of the said building are Malabar Industries (P) Ltd. Out of the four aforesaid flats, two were directly purchased by the respondent-company from the builders and the other two were purchased by its sister concern and subsequently by the assessee. The possession of the flats was taken after payment of consideration in full some time in August, 1973. It is common ground that all these flats have been let out to various persons. The rental income from these flats was included in the return for the assessment years in qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 84(1997)CLT434; 1997(92)ELT289(SC); JT1997(5)SC440; 1997(4)SCALE199; (1997)5SCC311
Sen, J.1. The appellant, IDL Chemicals Limited, manufactures explosives at its factory at Sonaparbat. The raw materials for explosives are obtained from diverse sources. The finished goods are sold in the following manner: (i) Goods which are sold to customers like Coal India Limited.(ii) Goods sold to public sector companies and Government undertakings.(iii) Goods which are sold to ordinary customers who do not have long term contract.(iv) Goods which are transferred from the factory premises to various magazines outside the State of Orissa which ultimately are sold to persons enumerated in categories (i), (ii) and (iii).2. There is no dispute that the goods are sold to Coal India Limited and Government undertakings at a rate much lower than the rate charged for the goods sold to ordinary customers who do not have any long term contract with the appellant.3. There is also no dispute that excise duty is paid at the factory gate on the basis of three different prices:(i) The price paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3702; JT1997(5)SC500; 1997(4)SCALE223; (1997)5SCC383; [1997]Supp1SCR328
K. RAMASWAMY, J.1. In view of separate judgments pronounced today in the above-mentioned matters, the following recommendations have come to be made by the Committee and accepted by the Government:1. Constitution of Archakas and Other Employees' Salary and Remuneration Fund.2. Providing Pension Schemes as in the case of Regional Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner cadre temples.3. Providing Dhoties, Uniform/Dresses to the Archakas and other employees.4. Since it is suggested to appoint Additional Commissioner, the appointment of the welfare officer to look after the welfare measures in respect of Archakas and secular staff has become redundant.5. Acceptance of the Government to frame a separate set of service conditions in respect of the Archakas and other religious staff in view of their peculiar duties attached to them is a good proposal.6. Merging of the existing welfare scheme with the welfare scheme formulated.7. In regard to Condition No. 7 relating to approaching the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2775; 1997(2)BLJR1771; JT1997(5)SC621; 1997(4)SCALE306; (1998)9SCC121; [1997]Supp1SCR380
1. Leave granted.2. These matters are disposed of by a common order.3. While adopting the revised and updated guidelines for the implementation of Ancillary Development Programme by the Public Sector Enterprises, by proceedings dated October 3, 1979, the Hyderabad Allwyn Limited which has been a State Government undertaking, invited applications from the entrepreneurs to set up various ancillary industries for supply of required goods. The appellants have set Up ancillary unit for supply of watch boxes, watch strips and dial holding rings. There was a dispute as regards the payment of the amount and the resultant liability. In regard thereto, a writ petition came to be filed in the High Court. Learned Single Judge by his judgment dated January 19, 1988 directed the Government to appoint Plant Level Committee and follow the enforceable guidelines issued thereunder; ancillary industries are the units coming within the Scheme; and, therefore, the recommendations of the Plant Level Committ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(5)SC498; 1997(4)SCALE238; (1997)5SCC388; [1997]Supp1SCR362
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. Five former hereditary Mirasidars of Shri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple, Tiruchanur, have stated that the daily and periodical pooja and other sacred rituals are being performed according to pancharatra Agamas. They are performed every day by each family through the deputies and themselves personally by a rotation on year to year basis. Shri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple, Thiruchanur was being managed by five families. They were responsible for the maintenance and cleaning the sanctum sanctorum and inner prakaram personally or through the deputies. Pooja is performed personally by one of the members of the family. They were responsible for safety of the jewellery and other valuables in the temple. After the judgment was rendered, they have suddenly been dispossessed of all the religious duties and other custodial responsibilities. It is the tradition and belief that Ammavaru is their family sister and out of devotion to their sister, they are assiduously performing daily ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(10)SC749; 1997(4)SCALE244; (1997)6SCC200; [1997]Supp1SCR298; 1997(2)LC319(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 4.5.1995 dismissing O.A. No. 342 of 1994, rejecting the appellant's claim for additional remuneration for holding current/additional of a higher post.2. The appellant was working as Deputy Registrar (Admn.) in the High Court of Rajasthan. On 9.3.1988, the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal appointed the appellant as Deputy Registrar, on deputation in the scale of Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-4500 initially for a period of one year. Appellant was relieved in the High Court and he joined in the new post on deputation on 29.4.1988.3. By an order dated 29.4.1988, the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal, in exercise of his powers under Rule 13 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1978 and as Head of Department, declared the appellant Deputy Registrar as head of the Office of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jodhpur and directed that he wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2590
1. This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the High Court of Delhi, made on 13.3.1997 in C.W. No. 1085/97.2. The predecessor of the petitioner-Company had taken on rent the disputed premises, from the Life Insurance Corporation, on 4th floor of Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Since the petitioner had not vacated the premises, action was taken for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitioner challenged the action in the High Court contending that this Court had issued directions in I.A. Nos. 4 and 4 of 1992 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2058-59/88 to constitute a High-power Committee to resolve the disputes between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of India of the concerned Ministry, by a Committee composed of Cabinet Secretary, Secretary in Ministry of Law and Secretary in the Bureau of Public Sector Undertakings to decide the disputes without needless consumption of time and waste of publi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2925; JT1997(5)SC680; 1997(4)SCALE379; (1997)6SCC37; [1997]Supp1SCR389; 1997(2)LC121(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.3. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, made on March 17, 1997 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1464-66/94.4. The indisputable facts are that the Committee was superseded by the Administrator who has been appointed by the Government to manage the affairs of the Society, pending further action. During the period of the administration, the Administrator had enrolled new members and given schedule of programme for conducting the elections to the Committee. The respondents challenged the order of appointment of the Administrator. The learned single Judge, while setting aside the order of appointment, held that the Administrator has no power to enrol new members; but he could conduct elections to the Committee of the Society as per the schedule of the programme. That was confirmed by the Division Bench. The material provisions in that behalf are contained in Sections 30 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(6)SC24; 1997(4)SCALE305; (1997)5SCC511; [1997]Supp1SCR378
ORDERK. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the High Court of Delhi, made on 13.3.1997 in C.W. No. 1085/97.2. The predecessor of the petitioner-Company had taken on rent the disputed premises, from the Life Insurance Corporation, on 4th floor of Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Since the petitioner had not vacated the premises, action was taken for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitioner challenged the action in the High Court contending that this Court had issued directions in LA. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1992 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2058-59/88 to constitute a High-power Committee to resolve the disputes between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of India of the concerned Ministry, by a Committee composed of Cabinet Secretary, Secretary in Ministry of Law and Secretary in the Bureau of Public Sector Undertakings to decide the disputes without needless c...
Tag this Judgment!