Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)193CTR(SC)578; [2005]142TAXMAN713(SC)
ORDERLeave granted in special leave petition.In view of our judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 2335 of 2003 CIT v. D.P. Sandhu Chembur (P) Ltd. today, these appeals are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)581; 2005CriLJ1422; (2005)3GLR2269; JT2005(2)SC411; 2005(I)OLR(SC)499; (2005)3SCC277; 2005(2)LC1163(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Appellant herein was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo additional three months' simple imprisonment. He was prosecuted along with three others for sharing common intention for causing death of one Siddique Ahmed Patel and causing simple hurt with sharp cut weapon to Yusuf Adam Patel (PW-3).2. At about 5.45 p.m. on 29.11.1993, the deceased was allegedly going to a mosque for offering prayer (Namaz). When he was passing by the house of the accused persons situated at village Sarod, all the four accused persons were standing there. A quarrel ensued between them, when the deceased Siddique was asked as to why he had entered into a transaction of the house instead of land to which he answered that he had entered into a transaction with his maternal uncle, whereupon t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC796; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)545; [2005]273ITR1(SC); JT2005(2)SC226; (2005)2SCC584
Ruma Pal, J.1. The primary question involved in this appeal is whether the amount received by the respondent-assessee on surrender of tenancy rights is liable to capital gains tax under Section 45 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 1987-88. The lease agreement was entered in 1959 for 50 years under which an annual rent was paid by the lessee to the lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. During the relevant previous year, in March 1986, the respondent surrendered its tenancy right to its lessor prematurely. In consideration for such premature termination, the lessor paid the lessee a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs.2. In the assessee's return the sum of Rs. 35 lakhs had been credited to its reserve and surplus account. This was disallowed by the Assessing Officer who held that the amount of Rs. 35 lakhs was taxable as 'income from other sources' under Section 10(3) read with Section 56. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who cam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005]142TAXMAN720(SC)
ORDER OF AFFIRMATIONRecording of reasonsQuestioning correctness of certain conclusions by the Tribunal, revenue preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court held that the Tribunal s view in respect of certain questions as formulated was not in order and accordingly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue in part. The assessee before the Supreme Court contended that the conclusions of the High Court had been arrived at without any discussion and further, no reasons had been indicated as to why seal of approval was being put on the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Revenue argued that when views of Tribunal and first appellate authority were being affirmed, there was no need to record reasons separately. Held: It is true that in an order of affirmation, repetition of reasons, elaborately may not be necessary but even then the reasons for affirmation have to be indicated though in appropriate cases they may be briefly stated. Matter therefore, remanded to High Court.Income Tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC909; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)269; 2005(1)AWC679(SC); 99(2005)CLT555(SC); 2005(1)CTC604; [2005(2)JCR58(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC556; 2005(2)MPHT90; (2005)140PLR246; (2005)2SCC731;
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The appellant was born a Maharashtrian Barhmin. She married one Naresh Kumar Thakur who is a Namdev by caste. In the election to the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior, the appellant filed her nomination for election for the post of a Corporator for Ward No. 50, a ward reserved for backward communities. The appellant was declared elected. The defeated candidate - the respondent herein challenged the election of the appellant in an Election Petition. The District Judge held that the nomination paper of the appellant was wrongly accepted and that her election was liable to be set aside since she could not contest the seat reserved for backward communities. The appellant filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court after consideration of the relevant aspects confirmed the decision of the District Court. The court overruled the contention of the appellant that the Circular dated 12.03.1997 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh was restricted to emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC800; 2005(2)ALD53(SC); 2005(3)ALT8(SC); [2006(2)JCR236(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC496; (2005)2SCC244
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The election of the appellant from Sringavarapukota 28 S.T. Assembly constituency in Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh to the legislative assembly in the elections of the year 1999 was challenged under the Representation of the People Act before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in three Election Petitions. Two of them were by defeated candidates and one of them by a voter in the constituency. The election petition [E.P.No. 25 of 1999] filed by one of the defeated candidates abated due to the death of the petitioner therein during the pendency of the election petition in the High Court. The other two election petitions were allowed by the High Court upholding the challenge to the election of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not qualified to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Thus the election of the appellant was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed these appeals under Section 116A of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)815; (2005)4CompLJ29(SC); (2005)193CTR(SC)590; [2005]273ITR56(SC); JT2005(2)SC442; (2005)2SCC329
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by the assesses are directed against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in appeals purported to be under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). The appeals were filed by the revenue questioning correctness of certain conclusions arrived at by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (in short the 'Tribunal') in appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue. 3. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1995-96. The relevant factual details have been noted in Civil Appeal No. 4232 of 2003 and other cases (M. Janardhan Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax etc. etc.) disposed of today, and are not repeated here. The assessee was described as A.O.P.-3 by the revenue authorities in the concerned assessment proceedings. 4. Questioning correctness of certain conclusions by the Tribunal, revenue had preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court has held ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC780; 2005(2)ALD99(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)225; 2005(2)ALT24(SC); 2005(1)AWC799(SC); 2005(1)BLJR289; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN84; 99(2005)CLT487(SC); 2005(1)CTC443; [2005(2)
1. Plaintiffs who are the appellants have filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No. 715 of 1988 to the extent it has gone against them. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.Facts:2. One Padmayya Kambali was the owner of the disputed suit properties. He had four sons and three daughters. Appellant Nos. 1 & 2 are the daughters and appellant No. 3 is the granddaughter through the third daughter who has died. Defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 12 are the grandchildren of Padmayya Kambali through his three sons and 13th Respondent is his 4th son. Padmayya Kambali died on 13.4.1976. At the time of his death he left behind vast properties some of which he had inherited from his brother and includes properties which vested in the State of Karnataka in respect of which compensation was paid. He executed a will dated 28.3.1976 (Exhibit D-1) which was got regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005]142TAXMAN722(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 13009-13012/2003, 13021-13022/2003, 2763-2766/2004 and 13015-13016/2003.2. These appeals have their matrix in a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. By the impugned judgment several appeals filed by assessees and revenue purported to be under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were disposed of.3. Detailed reference to the factual aspects would be unnecessary as we propose to dispose of the appeals taking note of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the manner of disposal as done by the High Court is not in line with the prescriptions of Section 260A of the Act. Suffice it would to only note that the assessees were at some point of time, partners of a partnership firm styled Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works. The said firm which consisted of thirteen partners stood dissolved in terms of the Deed of Partnership with effect from 6-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)4CompLJ23(SC); (2005)193CTR(SC)585; [2005]273ITR50(SC); JT2005(2)SC402; 2005(1)MhLj1142; 2005MPLJ401(SC); (2005)2SCC324
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos.13009-13012/2003, 13021-13022/2003, 2763-2766/2004 and 13015-13016/2003.2. These appeals have their matrix in a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. By the impugned judgment several appeals filed by assessees and revenue purported to be under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') were disposed of.3. Detailed reference to the factual aspects would be unnecessary as we propose to dispose of the appeals taking note of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the manner of disposal as done by the High Court is not in line with the prescriptions of Section 260A of the Act. Suffice it would to only note that the assessees were at some point of time, partners of a partnership firm styled Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works. The said firm which consisted of thirteen partners stood dissolved in terms of the Deed of Partnership with effect from 6.12.1987, by ef...
Tag this Judgment!