Taxation Assignment 1 CASE ANALYSIS: The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. V/s The State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 452 B Subject of the case: Sales Tax/ VAT Submitted by: Ameya Foujdar PRN: 14010122023 3 Year LLB Course: 2nd Year Student Submitted to: Prof. Rupal Rautdesai/ Prof. Vivek Kulkarni Symbiosis Law School Symbiosis International University Contents Introduction 2 Sales Tax in General 3 Issues 3 Rules Applicable 3 Analysis 4 Conclusion 7 References 7 Introduction The appellant is a company incorporated under the Indian companies Act. This is a case involving the imposition of sales tax under the Bihar sales Tax act, 1947 . A return was filed by the appellant company claiming certain deduction which was rejected by the taxation authorities. The authorities disallowing the deduction claims calculated the sales tax realized by the appellant from its purchasers and added it to the company’s taxable income. The appeal was against the imposition of such tax contending that legislature could only make law imposing tax on concluded sales only and levy of tax by reason of amendment to section 4 (1) retrospectively makes it direct tax on the dealer, thus completely changing the character of tax. The appellant further contended a few issues like the tax levied on the company was as a seller and not as a manufacturer or producer, tax was on goods and not on sales proceeds, collection of sales tax by registered dealer did not take away primary liability of seller to pay sales tax and
Assignment 6: Tinker v. Des Moines Ana M. Greenwood University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Tinker v. Des Moines In December 1965, thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinker was a high school student in Des Moines, Iowa. During that time, a group of adults and students gathered to declare their opposition to the conflicts in Vietnam. To protest, the group agreed to wear black armbands during the Christmas break (Iannacci, 2017). Tinker and a group of students decided to take this protest and armbands to school to school as well.
The case of Tammy Lou Fontenot v. Taser International, Inc. was about a wrongful death case named Darryl Tuner, a 17-year-old male employed by a grocery store. Darryl was fired for “insubordination” and refused to leave the grocery store. Police were called, and eventually used a Taser in order to take him into custody. Turner died as a result of the Taser being delivered to Turner’s body. Tammy Lou Fontenot filed suit against the City of Charlotte and Taser International seeking money damages for the alleged wrongful death of Darryl Turner.
when Sue Sylvester learned that Mr. shuester had killed Titan she was very upset at losing her companion Ms. Sylvester has come to our office to ask if she can sue Mr. Schuester over the death of her beloved Titan I am considering filing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Please review the attached case, Ammon v. Welty, 113 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2002), assume it states the current law on the topic, and write an analysis of whether Mr. Schuester’s conduct meets the “intent” element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
RELATED CASES: None SUPPORT DOCUMENTS: None On 01/21/2016, Daniel Ruther contacted the Pasco Sheriff`s Office by telephone to report a Petit Theft. Mr. Ruther advised between 1600 and 1700 hours on 01/20/2016, an unknown suspect stole the tag off of his flatbed trailer while is was stopped in traffic at the noted intersection. He said he did not see who ripped the tag off of the trailer, but he felt his truck shake while he was sitting in it.
Laura Richart S. DioGuardi Criminal Law & Procedure 22 September 2016 CJ2300 Assignment 1: Case Brief Case: Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) Procedural History: Fred Korematsu was a Japanese- American who was sent to an internment camp following the enactment of Executive Order 9066 in 1942. This executive order required that all Japanese- Americans, some Italian- Americans, and some Jewish refugees be taken from their homes and placed in internment camps around the United States, with many being on the West Coast. This was in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor and was intended to prevent supposed espionage. Korematsu refused to transfer from the original camp in Manzanar, CA that he was placed in and was arrested and
An arrest warrant was issued out against for Tituba Indian in Salem Village on February 29, 1692. There were also arrest warrants out for Sarah Good and Sarah Osborne. All three of these women were accused of witch craft and examined the day after they were captured. They were examined at Nathaniel Ingersoll’s tavern in the Salem Town. This examination was performed by Jonathan Corwin and John Hathorne.
Vonlee Titlow was tried for murder when she and her aunt Billie Rodgers killed Billie's wealthy husband Donald Rodgers. The prosecution Presented Titlow with a plea bargain of manslaughter, for her testimony against her aunt Billie in her trial. Shortly before the Trial of Titlow's aunt Billie, she had a conversation with an officer, who instructed her not to take the plea if she was, in fact, innocent. After this conversation, Titlow got rid of her current lawyer for new counsel in her case. Toca who was brought in as this new counsel fought to get the length of the plea reduced to a lower term.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, in 1969, problems arose when Brandenburg, a leader of a Klu Klux Klan, held a KKK meeting in an Ohio farm. In the convention Brandenburg was filmed as he complained about the United States suppressing the white race. For the most part the film was inaudible but it was certain that Brandenburg had stated some demeaning opinions on African Americans and Jews. In the assembly some Klu Klux Klan members were holding weapons. Though Brandenburg was not, he made it clear that violence would not take place unless it was necessary.
Korematsu v. United States was a controversial landmark decision ruling by the United States Supreme court. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American living in California, he was ordered to refuse to leave his city after the Japanese internment camp. After the World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066 and Congressional decree gave the military power to exclude citizens of Japanese descent from areas deemed critical to national defense and may be vulnerable to espionage. On May 3, 1942, Fred Korematsu stayed in California and violated the US Army Civilian Executive Order No. 34. This supreme court case has an importance of interpreting the constitution and the different perspective of interpreting the constitution based on a person’s own political background and beliefs.
Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified.
When trying to support my argument about legal doctrines being shaped by race during this time period the case of Korematsu v. United States has to be talked about. At the beginning of WWII President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, giving the U.S. military the right to ban thousands of Japanese-American citizens from areas thought of as critical to homeland security. Thus, setting up ‘interment camps’ to hold the Japanese for the duration of the war. Mr. Korematsu did not follow suit and decided to stay home in the state of California. The upholding of Korematsu’s conviction by the Supreme Court showed not only how threatened the country felt about Japanese immigrants but also put into question how equal everyone truly was in America.
Today marks the 80th anniversary of the devastating Supreme Court case of Palko v. Connecticut[1] in which the Supreme Court held that the 5th amendment right against Double Jeopardy did not apply to state courts. While Palko[2] was eventually overturned by the landmark case of Benton v. Maryland[3], Palko stood for 32 years as an impediment to peoples Constitutional rights. The Case[4] The case behind Palko perhaps explains the Courts dim view. Late one evening in 1935, Frank Palko[5] broke into a music store in Fairfield County Connecticut[6] , stole a phonograph and fled the scene on foot. Mr. Palko was quickly cornered by a police officer who he shot and killed.
In my first case, I will analyze the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In this case, in a 5-4 decision, the Court overrules its decision in United States v. Miller, in which, it stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in relation with service in a well-regulated, government sponsored militia. In the majority opinion of Heller, Scalia divides the Second Amendment into two parts: the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause is the first half of the Second Amendment, it reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” while the operative clause is the second half of the Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
Lindsay Weeks Legal Brief 1. Title and Citation Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998) 2. Facts of the Case This case dealt with the introduction of the Line Item Veto Act which merged two primary acts that caused immense controversy among Congress. The first provision “gave the president the power to rescind various expenditures, it established a check on his ability to do so”.
In the said case, the counsel for the appellants tried to argue before the Court of Appeal that the decision in the case Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor was wrong. Because the court was heard in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It was also