Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwala vs Union Of India & Anr on 4 May, 1999

Sumit Bhattacharya vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 January, 2008

49. It was thus held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once it is concluded that an employment related benefit is in the nature of income and even if it is cannot be taxed under the head income from salaries', such an income can be taxed under the head 'income from other sources'. In other words, merely because an employment related benefit cannot be taxed under the head 'income from salaries', such a benefit cannot go outside the ambit of taxable income. Of course, Their Lordships were dealing with the legal position prior to the five judge bench decision in the case of Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal's case (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 55 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

G. Ramanujam vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By The ... on 27 December, 2002

In pursuance of Supreme Court Order in W.P.No.502 of 1987 Justice S.B.Srivatsava retired Chief Justice Vs. Union of India, the benefit of enhanced rates/scales of pension introduced from 1.11.1986 onwards, were extended to pre 1.11.1986 retired Judges with effect from 1.11.1986, irrespective of their date of retirement. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed revised higher pension with effect from 1.11.1986 i.e., with prospective effect. By virtue o the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1954 read with the Civil Pension (Commutation of Pension) Rules, the Judges are entitled to commute one half of their pension. Rule 10 of said rule provides that-
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R J Babu - Full Document

Lalu Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 November, 2008

On the basis of aforesaid information, it cannot be said that the conclusion of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwala Vs. Union of India and Another, 237 ITR 872. In the said case besides the question as to whether salary of a Judge is taxable and another question was as to whether it is to be taxable under the head "salary or Income from other sources". One of the question in the aforesaid case was as follows:-
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - R Ranjan - Full Document

Sri Lalu Prasad vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 November, 2008

On the basis of aforesaid information, it cannot be said that the conclusion of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwala Vs. Union of India and Another, 237 ITR 872. In the said case besides the question as to whether salary of a Judge is taxable and another question was as to whether it is to be taxable under the head "salary or Income from other sources". One of the question in the aforesaid case was as follows:-
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Ranjan - Full Document

Manmohan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 August, 2010

9. A perusal of the above shows that the subject matter of the legislation is salary and allowances paid to the Members of the Assembly. There is no provision in the Central Legislation debarring payment of tax levied thereunder by the persons other than assessees. In fact Section 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifically provides as to how the tax at source is to be deducted by the employer where tax is payable by the employer. Even if it is accepted that the State Government is not the employer of the Members of Legislative Assembly, there is no bar to tax being paid by the persons other than the assessees. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Mr. Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwala v. Union of India and another, AIR 1999 SC 1951 does not help him. It was held therein that even if relationship of employer and employee did not exist between the Government and the Judges, the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court could be taxed. The impugned provision does not exempt the MLAs from tax. It only provides for payment of tax by the State Government instead of by the assessee.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Ravindranath Ge Medical ... vs Assessee on 11 April, 2014

(p) In the case of Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwala v Union of India (1999) 237 ITR 872 (SC), the Supreme Court. has held that salary of judges and other constitutional functionaries is also taxable under the head Salary. It was under the Constitution the amount received by them is salary. This decision leads to the proposition that what is relevant is employment and not so much the presence of an employer as understood in the conventional sense.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devki Nandan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 August, 2025

2. This criminal revision is preferred by the revisionist Devki Nandan against the judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanshiram Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1124 of 2009 (A.K. Chaturvedi Food Inspector Vs. Devki Nandan) by which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to three months further imprisonment and further against the Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2009 (Devki Nandan Vs. State and another) preferred against the said judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 of the trial court which has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kasganj and the judgment and order of the trial court has been affirmed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Wockhardt Hospitals Limited, Hyd, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 May, 2012

15. The DR further relied upon the ratios laid down in the case of St. Stephens Hospital Vs. DCIT [ITAT, F Bench, Delhi] reported in (2006) 6 SOT 60(Del) and Max Mueller Bhavan, In re (Advance ruling) reported in 268 ITR 31 and Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwala Vs. Union of India (1999) 237 ITR 872 (SC). Relying on these decisions, it is submitted that the payments made would fall within the purview of Section 192 of the I.T. Act, thereby it is to be treated as the assessee in default u/s. 201(1) and interest to be levied u/s. 201(lA). According to the DR, the short deduction has been worked out as below:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next