Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)213CTR(SC)266; [2007]295ITR282(SC)
ORDER1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the proviso to Section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide the 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new proviso. We express no opinion on the scope of the said amendment of 2005. Suffice it to state that in this particular case when the order of the Commissioner was passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, two views on the said word 'profits' existed. In our view the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83; as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties P. Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT : [1977]109ITR229(Cal) .2. At this stage we may clarify that under paragraph 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 this Court has taken the view that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3; 2007(13)SCALE23; (2008)1SCC354; 2007AIRSCW6986.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24.5.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM Nos. 9506/2004 & 4393/2006 and W.P.(C) No. 13604/2004 & 13605/2004 affirming an Order dated 17.12.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi in Original Application No. 864/2003.3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Central Public Works Department belonging to the Central Government has its own Service Rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, known as 'Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment (Department of Urban Development) Central Engineering (Civil) Group 'A' Service Rules, 1996' (Rules). The said Rules came into force with effect from 28.10.1996. Whereas Rule 3 of the Rules provides for 'Constitution of the Service', Rule 4 provides for 'Grade, strength and its review'. The first schedule appended to the Rules provides for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC595; 2008(56)BLJR251; 2007(12)SCALE644; 2007AIRSCW7633
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The brief facts of the case are that six petitioners in CWJC No. 7253 of 1998 before the Patna High Court who had obtained GAMS (Graduate of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) degree from the State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines (for short 'the Faculty') established under Section 17 of the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (for short 'the 1951 Act') were not permitted to appear in the examination for admission in Post Graduate Course in Ayurved leading to award of Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Ayurved. It was the case of the petitioners that they had passed the GAMS examination conducted by the Faculty under the 1951 Act and were conferred GAMS degree by the Faculty and, thus, they were qualified to appear in the examination for obtaining the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Ayurved. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance and the State filed reply wherein the stand taken by the State was that GAMS Deg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC435; 2008(3)JKJ79[SC]; 2007(12)SCALE771; (2008)1SCC368; 2008(2)SLJ140(SC); 2007AIRSCW7204
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Applicability of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.08.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 3719 of 2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning an order dated 11.9.2000 passed in Original Application No. 52 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing to consider the question of grant of replacement pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500 to the respondent, with consequential benefits in her favour. 3. Basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 4. Respondent herein was appointed as Technical Assistant of Urdu Language in the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language. She was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700. She was promoted as Research Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 550-900. The said scale of pay was revised to Rs. 1640- 2900 on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC521; 2008(1)AWC483(SC); 2007(12)SCALE719; [2007]80SCL80(SC),2007AIRSCW7393
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and upheld the recovery proceedings initiated against the appellants for the demand raised by the Jal Sansthan, Allahabad as water and sewer charges.2. The Union of India and two others filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the orders of recovery dated 1.7.1999 and 20.12.1999 issued by the Executive Engineer, Jal Sansthan, Khusru Bagh, Allahabad on account of service charges on Railway properties situated at Allahabad for the period from October, 1994 to March, 1999. The appellants also challenged the recovery certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Allahabad for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,23,360/- from the appellant No.2 i.e. the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad. It was alleged by the Jal Sansthan that the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC471; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)340; 2008(3)ALT11(SC); 2008(1)AWC490(SC); [2008(1)JCR122(SC)]; (2008)3MLJ536(SC); 2007(12)SCALE758; 2007AIRSCW7295; 2008(2)CivilLJ457; 2008(1)ICC143
ORDERThe Respondent/Mohankumar Rayana is directed to hand over custody of the minor daughter Anisha to the petitioner/mother Komal Rayana immediately after completion of her final terms of the current academic session 2006- 2007.The Respondent/father shall take all the steps to provide all facilities to the minor daughter to enjoy her extra curricular activities and studies.After the child Anisha goes to the custody of the mother as ordered above, the Respondent/father would be at liberty and privilege to avail her access every alternate weekends, meet her at school at any time and share 50% of her school vacations, as per mutual arrangement with the petitioner/mother.The petitioner/mother should in consultation with the Respondent/father decide the question of her further academic education and she should not move the child out of the jurisdiction of the Court without its prior permission and of course after due intimation to the Respondent/father.The father/respondent shall meet all ...
Tag this Judgment!