0 votes
asked ago by (880 points)
Sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Act provided that the Central Government could refer to the Commission cases of persons other than those whose cases had been referred to it by the 1st of September, 1948, under section Chandigarh Advocate 5(1) if, after investigation, the Commission made a report to that effect. of the profits as agricultural income in accordance with rule 24 framed under s. However, for creating such preferential treatment under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of the factors such as caste, religion etc.

" There were similar applications by the assessees for relief under section 26(3) of the Act for the accounting periods 1942 and 1943, and similar orders were passed by the Central Board of Revenue granting allowance respectively of Rs nI (the First Secretary, Central Board of Revenue) hereby give you notice that the Central Board of Revenue has directed that, allowance of Rs. The provisions of this Act furnished an additional ground of ****** to the petitioners on the continuance of proceedings by the Commission in these cases under the provisions of Act *** of 1947.

381- Trial of Deserters - Under normal circumstances trial by summary court martial for desertion will be held by the CO of the unit of the deserter. The applications were dismissed except that the Chief Commissioner was held to have exceeded his legal authority in giving retrospective effect to the notification of the 7th of October, 1952, and the State of Ajmer, was restrained from enforcing the notification from any date earlier than the 8th of January, 1953. Whether there were sufficient material to support the findings of the High Court regarding non- compliance of Section 42(1) and Section 42 (2) and whether Section 43 was applicable Advocates in Chandigarh the present case are the other issues which need to be answered.

The Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, XXXIII of 1954, though assented to by the President on the 25th of September, 1954, came into force with effect from the 17th of July, 1954. State of Haryana (supra) these very grounds have been restated as: (i) the Governor exercising the power under Article 161 himself without being advised by the Government; or (ii) the Governor transgressing his jurisdiction; or (iii) the Governor passing the order without application of mind; or (iv) the Governors decision is based on some extraneous consideration; or (v) mala fides.

Both the petitions were heard together and a common judgment was passed by the Judicial Commissioner on the 16th of February, 1953. Visvanatha Sastri (supra) has perhaps resulted in the filing of these petitions which were presented to this Court on the 16th of July, 1954, after the decision in that case had been pronounced. Be it stated, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that there was no justification to assume that the President of India had not applied his mind to all the relevant facts and accordingly rejected the petition.

This was not opposed by the learned Attorney- General and was allowed. What this Court said in its judgment in Suraj Mal Mohta v. The basis for providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1). It is on these grounds that the Court may exercise its power of judicial review in relation to an order of the Governor under Article 161, or an order of the President under Article 72 of the Constitution, as the case may be.

Article 16(4) does not disable the State from providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1)[11] if they otherwise deserve such treatment. Before these petitions could come to a hearing and a day after they were presented to this Court, the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance VIII of 1954 was promulgated by the President and this was subsequently made into an Act on the 25th of September, 1954.

mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. State of Haryana[17] and opined that:- Advocate in Chandigarh a Division Bench decision of this Court in Satpal v. 59 of the Act, it must be held that the dividend of such company is not derived by the shareholder owing to his direct connection with the land in which be% is grown and such dividend is not agricultural income within the meaning of s nEven though a tea company growing and manufacturing top gets an exemption of 60 per cent.

Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to the PWD. Whether recovery as claimed by the prosecution is supported from the evidence on record and material and samples were properly sealed are other related issues. The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give preferential treatment in the matter of employment under State to certain classes of citizens identified to be a backward class.

Thus, two categories of oases under Act *** of 1947 could be referred to the Investigation Commission by the Central Government, (1) (1955] 1 S. In the petitions, as originally drafted, the provisions of section 5(1) of Act *** of 1947 were impugned on the ground that they contravened the guarantee of equal protection of the laws enacted in article 14 of the Constitution and for that reason the Commission had no jurisdiction to deal with the cases of the petitioners by applying the discriminatory and drastic procedure of the impugned Act.

Whether the High Court committed error in acquitting the accused is the issue which needs to be considered in this appeal. and in respect of which it is the duty of such officer, under these Regulations or by the custom of ;the service, to discharge the functions of a Commanding Officer. 4,06,394 shall be made in respect of such circumstances, in computing the profits of such chargeable accounting period,-such allowance to be inclusive of all depreciation allowable for excess profits tax purpose in respect of the assets in question.

It was alleged that the petitioners belonged to the same class of persons as were dealt with under the ordinary law enacted in section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. It was further contended that the amended section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act was comprehensive in its scope, and all persons that were dealt with under section 5(1) of Act *** of 1947 had been brought within its ambit, and that being so, there was no basis left for giving them discriminatory or special treatment different from those similarly situated, and who were to be dealt with under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act as amended.

An application was therefore made seeking permission to, urge additional grounds. It is against this judgment that these two appeals have come up to this Court on the strength of certificates granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer. Lawyer in Chandigarh the additional grounds it was urged that the relevant 793 sections of Act *** of 1947, which affected the petitioners, had been impliedly repealed by the amended Act of 1954 and ceased to have any legal force and that the Commission could no longer proceed under those provisions against the petitioners.

Your answer

It doesn't hurt you to share this post to the social media account that you have
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.

Related questions

0 votes
0 answers
0 votes
0 answers
0 votes
0 answers
Welcome to Dagelan Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.

12.4k questions

7 answers

0 comments

9.5k users

...