Latest Cases

Master Capital Services Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh

Reported in : (2007)108TTJ(Chd.)389

.....of learned cit(a)-ii, ludhiana, dt. 7th dec, 2005. that the order under section 250(6) passed by the learned cit(a), ludhiana, is against law and facts on the file inasmuch as the learned cit(a) was not justified to uphold the disallowance of rs. 68,330 by holding the same in the nature of fees and penalty. the expenditure was incurred for running day-today business of the appellant company and could not be termed as any fine or penalty for infraction of any law.3. the relevant facts of the case under consideration in brief are that the ao during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had paid following amounts on account of nse violations and on account of fine and penalty: the ao asked the assessee to show-cause why those amounts should not be disallowed. the assessee submitted that the expenses were incidental to the business of the assessee and were compensatory in nature as such the expenses were rightly being claimed and were allowable. the ao did not accept the contention of the assessee and disallowed the expenses amounting to rs. 68,330.4. the assessee carried the matter to the learned cit(a) and submitted that expenditure was incurred for.....

Mihir Engineers Ltd. Vs. the Jt. Commr. of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)109ITD349(Mum.)

.....appeared for the assessee and shri shantam bose, departmental representative appeared for the revenue and put forward their rival submissions.5. the facts of the case are that, the assesses company is engaged in the manufacturing of cooling towers. during the year under consideration the assessee company had claimed deduction under section 80ia of the income tax act on the total turnover of the manufacturing items during the year including sale of bought out components, installation charges, forwarding charges and service charges. the total turnover of the assessee for assessment year 1997-98 was rs. 5,19,45,440/- (excluding sales tax) and consisting of the under mentioned items:________________________________________________________________________________ cooling towers others (rs) grand total (rs)________________________________________________________________________________ round bottle(rs) c.m. type(rs)________________________________________________________________________________manufactured items 30,87,365 1,00,04,249 __ 1,30,91,614________________________________________________________________________________bought-out components 87,14,988 2,80,64,464 __.....

Dy. Cit Vs. Vikram S. Agarwal

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

.....in all these three appeals, these three appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. briefly stated, the facts are that all these three assessees were the directors in diners club india ltd. now know as dbs financial services f pvt. ltd. (dbs). the said company entered into an agreement with citi bank and has actually sold its business of credit card to citi bank ltd. as a part of such deal, with citi bank required the diners to get restrictive covenant severally executed between citi bank and the four directors of the said company le., dbs. as per the contents of such restrictive covenant, company, le., dbs and 4 directors thereof were paid rs. 90 lakhs together out of which rs. 45 lakhs was received by dbs and the remaining rs. 45 lakhs were jointly receivable by the directors. mrs. p.s. aggarwal received rs. 15 lakhs.shri vikram s. agrawal had received a rs. 5 lakhs and mrs. vanita bhandari had received rs. 10 lakhs and remaining rs. 15 lakhs was received by shri s.s. agarwal. there is no dispute regarding amount of rs. 45 lakhs received by dbs and rs. 15 lakhs received by shri s.s.agarwal.in the case of mrs. vanita bhandari and mr......

Borpathar Tea Estate Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.

Court : Guwahati

.....to the tea estate to join there on his deployment but on the same day he had to come back due to non-availability of the accommodation and the said fact was reported by him to the management of borpathar tea by handing over a letter from the manager of the tea estate to this effect. thereafter, on 9.7.87 a written order was issued by the management of the borpathar tea estate deputing the workman to the tea estate. on 11.7.85 he requested to the management for consideration of his case of deputation to the tea estate due to the ill health of his wife and to this effect he placed a medical certificate showing the wife's illness. but on 22.7.85 the workman was put under suspension and eventually by order dated 21.9.85 after holding the domestic enquiry the workman was dismissed from service.5. being aggrieved by such dismissal order, the workman moved the learned labour court which in turn quashed the dismissal order and directed the management to reinstate the workman forthwith.6. being dissatisfied with such reinstatement order, the management of the borpathar tea estate moved this high court through c.r. no. 1242/90 and this court by judgment and order dated 22.9.94 quashed the.....

Jagtaran Sariya Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

.....certificate issued as apparent from the language of the document itself. there is no order of the returning officer under rule 79(2) of his satisfaction for reasons in writing for recounting. the returning officer was empowered to order recounting before declaration under rule 82 and make necessary correction in form 20 accordingly. thereafter no application for recounting can be entertained. the submission thus was that rule 76 and 79 contemplate a situation where the election process is still on, counting being a part of the process. objections and recounting were permissible till this stage. rule 81 follows thereafter when the necessary declaration of the candidate having received highest votes is issued under form 21 signed by the returning officer, with copies to the authorities concerned under rule 81(2). then followed the declaration of the result certifying the winning candidate in form 22 under rule 82 followed by its publication in the gazette. rules 76 and 79 operate at a different stage and different sphere than rule 81 and 82. after a declaration is made of a candidate having been elected under rule 82, there is no scope for recounting and the only remedy.....

Suresh Barua @ Suresh Chandra Barua Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.

Court : Patna

.....who ought to have been prosecuted. there is nothing in the complaint disclosing on what basis it is alleged that petitioner no. 2 had engaged the contract labour for removal of overburden. the act seeks to punish those who are responsible for the commission of an office, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that the existence of mens rea is not excluded either by any express provision of the act or by necessary implication. it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the company in question had appointed a manager as statutorily required under section 17 of the mines act.6. thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well the law laid down in the above decision of the division bench, it is quite clear that this petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal liability for failure to maintain register etc. at the work site. it was for the officers who were posted at the site to maintain the register etc.7. accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance is hereby quashed.

State of Bihar Vs. Brihaspat Singh

Court : Patna

.....of delay in preferring the appeal.3. it appears that there was some confusion as to whether a letters patent appeal is maintainable in view of section 54 of the land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') against the judgment and order passed by a learned single judge of a high court. this issue has now been answered by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of sharda devi v. state of bihar reported in 2002 (2) pljr 168 where the hon'ble supreme court has in no uncertain terms held that such a letters patent appeal is maintainable and section 54 of the said act does not create a bar in preferring such appeal.4. in such view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. the order under appeal is set aside. the matter is remitted to the first appellate court.

Ravi Shanker and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

.....learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of submissions have taken this court through the relevant provisions, as well as, the material facts emerging from the record of this group of petitions. it is evident that all the petitioners, who have been teaching or non-teaching staff of the elementary schools, are claiming the benefit of the government's benevolent schemes, as well as, the provisions made in the relevant law.5. it appears that in some of the cases, the petitioners have been moving the respondent authorities for their alleged entitled claim for difference of cost of living allowances, as well as, in some of the cases, payment of salary and other allowances from varied dates, unsuccessfully. some of the requests have been turned down. it is in these contexts, after being victims of running from pillar to post for the alleged claim of entitlement as employees, as teaching or non-teaching staff, as a measure of the last resort, they have knocked the door of justice by filing this group of writ petitions.6. it be noted that during course of hearing before conclusion, there has been consensus and upon consensual statement of the counsels made on behalf of the.....

Smt. Sukanya Apte and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR59; 2007(5)BomCR472; 2007(4)MhLj318

.....162disposition: petition dismissedjudgm>ku enta.p. deshpande, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the parties. as the common question of law and fact emerges in the writ petition, i heard the writ petitions together and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. the petitioner no. 1 is the secretary of a public trust namely, nagrik sahayya kendra, which administers a school by name dnyaneshwar vidyalaya of which the petitioner no. 2 is the head mistress. the respondent no. 4 in both the petitions, were appointed long back and at the fag end of their service career they have been compulsorily retired from service. both the respondents were made to retire about two to two and half years prior to their attaining the age of superannuation. the age of superannuation in regard to class iii members of the staff is 58 years. the respondent no. 4 in both the writ petitions, aggrieved by the action of compulsory retirement, approached the presiding officer, school tribunal, by contending that the order of compulsory retirement tantamount otherwise termination of respondent no. 4 from service and the tribunal upholding the contentions raised by respondent no. 4, has.....

Kishor S/O Siddheshwar Wadotkar (Dr.) Vs. Director of Town Planning an ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR258; (2007)109BOMLR1412; 2007CriLJ3645; 2007(4)MhLj427

.....in the order dated 2-6-2005 passed by the director of town planning, the reasons given for not releasing the land of the petitioner in spite of the fact that period of ten years has been lapsed and no steps were taken to acquire the land within six months from the date of receipt of service dated 22-4-2002 is that land in question is again reserved for construction of shops in the revised development plan, which came into effect in the year 2005.5. shri dharaskar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, submits that it is no doubt true that land in question was initially reserved for extension of dispensary. however, in the revised development plan, which came into force on 19-12-2005, land in question is reserved for construction of shops and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the land in question released from reservation merely because ten years' period has been lapsed and the planning authority could not acquire the land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of notice dated 22-4-2002 issued by the father of the petitioner under the provisions of section 127 of the mrtp act.6. we have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the.....