Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)
Exide Industries Limited And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2007 cites

Federation Of Railway Officers ... vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2003

(iv) Federation of Railway Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of India (supra): In this case the apex Court held that in examining a question involving the policy of the Government scope of judicial review is limited. The apex Court was of the view that in matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the Court would leave the matter for decision to those who are qualified to address those issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power, the Court will not interfere with such matters.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 242 - Full Document

Bharat Earth Movers vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka on 9 August, 2000

We are deprived of such reasons for our perusal. Mr. Banerjee, appearing for the Revenue, could not enlighten us on that score. We also do not find such enactment consistent with the original provision being Section 43B which was originally inserted to plug in evasion of statutory liability. The apex Court considered the situation in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra), when Clause (f) was not there. The apex Court, considering all aspects as disclosed by us hereinbefore, rejected the contention of the Revenue and granted appropriate deduction to the concerned assessee. The legislature to get rid of the decision of the apex Court brought out the amendment which would otherwise nullify the Judge made law. The apex Court decisions are Judge-made law and are applicable to all under the Constitution. We, not for a single moment, observe that legislature was not entitled to bring such amendment. They were within their power to bring such amendment. However, they must disclose reason which would be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the land and not for the sole object of nullifying the apex Court decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 480 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Malabar Fisheries Co, Calcutta vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala on 19 September, 1979

(i) Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra): In the case of Calcutta Co. the appellant dealt in land and property. They were to develop land and make infrastructure for the plot-holders to whom they were selling plots. When a particular plot was sold by the appellant the purchaser paid 25 per cent of the purchase price and the balance was to be paid with interest in 10 instalments. The appellant in its turn was to carry out development work within six months from the date of sale of the plot of land. The appellant maintained their accounts in mercantile method by showing future instalments as receivable after showing the entire price of the plot of land which they did not actually receive in a particular financial year. Provision was also made with regard to the expenses required for development work to be done in future. The ITO disallowed their claim for deduction on the ground that the expenses had not been actually incurred in that particular year as also on the ground that the estimate had not been proved to be based on a consideration of the real expenses which the company would have to incur for the purpose. The Appellate CIT confirmed the order of the ITO on the ground that there was no accrued liability as on that date. Moreover, the development work would be carried out in the future and as such the estimated cost could not be taken into account for the purpose of deduction. The Supreme Court ultimately held that it was not open for the Revenue to disallow the expenses as such estimated expenditure should have been taken into account to arrive at the actual profit which would be liable for tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 243 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

G.C. Kanungo vs State Of Orissa on 12 May, 1995

(iii) G.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa (supra): In this case a particular amendment in arbitration law was called in question. The apex Court held that such enactment was to nullify an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Thus such amendment amounted to encroaching upon the judicial power of the appropriate judicial authority and as such was held to be unconstitutional.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 42 - N Venkatachala - Full Document
1