Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Union government if a change in law is warranted on the legal question of whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a <keyword id="1049502" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="transport-vehicle" source="Orion">transport vehicle</keyword> of a particular weight. Observing that these are policy issues impacting the livelihood of lakhs of people, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="445662" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="Orion">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> said the government needs to take a "fresh look" at the matter while asserting that it needs to be taken up at the policy level. The top court asked the Centre to wrap up the exercise within two months and apprise it about the decision taken. It said any interpretation of the law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety and the safety of other users of public transport. The top court had earlier sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in dealing with a legal question about whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a transport vehicle of a particular weight. The constitution bench had said knowing the position of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be necessary after it was argued that the apex court's 2017 verdict in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited was accepted by the Centre and rules were amended to align them with the judgement. In the Mukund Dewangan case, a three-judge bench of the top court had held that transport vehicles, the gross weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg, are not excluded from the definition of LMV. "There may be lakhs of drivers across the country who are working on the basis of Dewangan judgment. This is not a constitutional issue. It is purely a statutory issue," the bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, said. "This is just not the question of law but also the social impact of the law... Road safety has to be balanced with the social purpose of the law and you have to see if this causes serious hardships. We cannot decide issues of social policy in a constitution bench," it said. The apex court said once the government informs its stand to the court, the hearing in the constitution bench will be taken up thereafter. The Constitution bench is dealing with a legal question which reads: "Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of 'light motor vehicle' could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a 'transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class' having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg." On July 18, the constitution bench commenced hearing as many as 76 petitions to deal with the legal question. It had then heard the arguments of senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for one of the petitioners, on alleged anomalies in the Motor Vehicle Act with regard to regimes for dealing with the grant of driving licenses for different categories of vehicles. The lead petition was filed by M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd. The legal question has given rise to various disputes over payment of claims by insurance companies in accident cases involving transport vehicles being driven by those having licences to drive LMVs. The Motor Vehicle Act provides for different regimes for the granting of driving licences for different categories of vehicles. The matter was referred to the larger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit, since retired. It was said that certain provisions of the law were not noticed by the apex court in the Mukund Dewangan judgement and "the controversy in question needs to be revisited".

Can you drive a light transport vehicle if you have an LMV licence? SC asks Centre to respond

New Delhi, Sep 9 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday said that in a taxation regime, there is no room for presumption and it is the responsibility of the government to design a tax system which is convenient and simple so that an individual or a corporate can budget and plan. The top court, which allowed a batch of appeals filed by banks held that the proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under Section 14A of Income Tax Act for investments made in tax free bonds/securities which yield tax free dividend and interest to assessee Banks in those situations where, interest free own funds available with them, exceeded their investments. Section 14A of Income Tax Act deals with expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy said "With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the ITAT favouring the assessees." Referring to the work of 18th century economist Adam Smith in 'The Wealth of Nations', the bench said it needs to be observed here that "in taxation regime, there is no room for presumption and nothing can be taken to be implied". The bench said, "The tax an individual or a corporate is required to pay, is a matter of planning for a taxpayer and the Government should endeavour to keep it convenient and simple to achieve maximization of compliance. Just as the Government does not wish for avoidance of tax equally, it is the responsibility of the regime to design a tax system for which a subject can budget and plan". The top court said that if proper balance is achieved, unnecessary litigation can be avoided without compromising on generation of revenue. "In view of the foregoing discussion, the issue framed in these appeals is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals by the Assessees are accordingly allowed with no order on costs", it said. The bench said that its conclusion is reached because nexus has not been established between expenditure disallowed and earning of exempt income. "The respondents (revenue department), have failed to substantiate their argument that assessee was required to maintain separate accounts…The counsel for the revenue has failed to refer to any statutory provision which obligate the assessee to maintain separate accounts which might justify proportionate disallowance", it said. The bench said that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued the Circular on November 2, 2015, which had explained all shares, and securities held by a bank which are not bought to maintain Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) are its stock-in-trade and not investments and income arising out of those is attributable, to business of banking. "Hence the income earned through such investments would fall under the head Profits and Gains of business. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case…while adverting to the CBDT Circular, concluded correctly that shares and securities held by a bank are stock in trade, and all income received on such shares and securities must be considered to be business income. That is why Section 14A would not be attracted to such income," the top court said. It said that in the present case the High Court had endorsed the proportionate disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act to the extent of investments made in tax-free bonds/securities primarily because, separate account was not maintained by the banks. The bench said that when it enquired on this aspect about the law which obligates the banks to maintain separate accounts, the revenue department could not provide a satisfactory answer and instead relied upon an earlier verdict to argue that it is the responsibility of the banks to fully disclose all material facts. "An assessee definitely has the obligation to provide full material disclosures at the time of filing of Income Tax Return but there is no corresponding legal obligation upon the assessee to maintain separate accounts for different types of funds held by it", it said. The bench said that in absence of any statutory provision which compels the banks to maintain separate accounts for different types of funds, the judgment cited by the revenue department will have no application. The top court was interpreting whether Section 14A, enables the Department to make disallowance on expenditure incurred for earning tax free income in cases where some banks who are before the court, do not maintain separate accounts for the investments and other expenditures incurred for earning the tax-free income. In absence of separate accounts for investment which earned tax free income, the assessing officer had made proportionate disallowance of interest attributable to the funds invested to earn tax free income. Since actual expenditure figures are not available for making disallowance under Section 14A, the Assessing Officer worked out proportionate disallowance by referring to the average cost of deposit for the relevant year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) had concurred with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT, however, accepted the banks' case and held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted, in absence of clear identity of funds. The decision of the ITAT was reversed by the High Court by accepting the contention of the revenue department and thereafter banks have approached the top court. PTI MNL MNL GSN GSN

Responsibility of Govt to design convenient tax system so that individuals can budget & plan: SC

(Eds: adding details) New Delhi, Sep 9 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday said that in a taxation regime there is no room for presumption and it is the responsibility of the government to design a tax system which is convenient and simple so that an individual or a corporate can budget and plan. The top court also said that if a proper balance is achieved, unnecessary litigation can be avoided without compromising on the generation of revenue. The court, which allowed a batch of appeals filed by banks against an order of the Kerala High Court, held that the proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted under Section 14A of Income Tax Act for investments made in tax free bonds/securities which yield tax free dividend and interest to assessee Banks in those situations where interest free own funds available with them exceeded their investments. Section 14A deals with expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. "With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the ITAT favouring the assessees," said a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy in its 22-page judgement. Referring to the work of 18th century economist Adam Smith in 'The Wealth of Nations', the bench said it needs to be observed here that "in taxation regime, there is no room for presumption and nothing can be taken to be implied". "The tax an individual or a corporate is required to pay, is a matter of planning for a taxpayer and the Government should endeavour to keep it convenient and simple to achieve maximization of compliance. Just as the Government does not wish for avoidance of tax equally, it is the responsibility of the regime to design a tax system for which a subject can budget and plan," it said. "In view of the foregoing discussion, the issue framed in these appeals is answered against the Revenue (department) and in favour of the assessee. The appeals by the Assessees are accordingly allowed with no order on costs." The bench said that its conclusion is reached because a nexus has not been established between expenditure disallowed and earning of exempt income. "The respondents (Revenue department) have failed to substantiate their argument that an assessee was required to maintain separate accounts. The counsel for the revenue department has failed to refer to any statutory provision which obligate the assessee to maintain separate accounts which might justify proportionate disallowance", it added. The bench said that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued a Circular on November 2, 2015, which had explained all shares, and securities held by a bank which are not bought to maintain Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) are its stock-in-trade and not investments and income arising out of those is attributable, to business of banking. "Hence the income earned through such investments would fall under the head Profits and Gains of business. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case…while adverting to the CBDT Circular, concluded correctly that shares and securities held by a bank are stock in trade, and all income received on such shares and securities must be considered to be business income. That is why Section 14A would not be attracted to such income," the top court said. It said that in the present case the Kerala High Court had endorsed the proportionate disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act to the extent of investments made in tax-free bonds/securities primarily because separate account was not maintained by the banks. The bench said that when it enquired on this aspect about the law which obligates the banks to maintain separate accounts, the Revenue department could not provide a satisfactory answer and instead relied upon an earlier verdict to argue that it is the responsibility of the banks to fully disclose all material facts. "An assessee definitely has the obligation to provide full material disclosures at the time of filing of Income Tax Return but there is no corresponding legal obligation upon the assessee to maintain separate accounts for different types of funds held by it", it added. The bench said that in the absence of any statutory provision which compels the banks to maintain separate accounts for different types of funds, the judgement cited by the Revenue department will have no application. The top court was interpreting whether Section 14A enables the Revenue department to make disallowance on expenditure incurred for earning tax free income in cases where some banks who are before the court, do not maintain separate accounts for the investments and other expenditures incurred for earning the tax-free income. In the absence of separate accounts for investment which earned tax free income, the assessing officer had made proportionate disallowance of interest attributable to the funds invested to earn tax free income. Since actual expenditure figures are not available for making disallowance under Section 14A, the Assessing Officer worked out proportionate disallowance by referring to the average cost of deposit for the relevant year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) had concurred with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT), however, accepted the banks' case and held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted, in the absence of clear identity of funds. The decision of the ITAT was reversed by the Kerala High Court by accepting the contention of the revenue department and thereafter banks approached the top court. PTI MNL GSN GSN GSN

Responsibility of Govt to design convenient tax system so that individuals can budget and plan: SC

New Delhi, May 13 () The Supreme Court on Wednesday came out with a formal notification asking lawyers not to wear coats and long gowns during the hearings through video conferencing "till medical exigencies exist or until further orders" in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic. The notification came in the evening, hours afterChief Justice of India (CJI) S A Bobde, said such dresses should not be donned as they make it easier to "catch virus". "It is notified for the information of all concerned that considering the medical advice, as a precautionary measure to contain spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection under the prevailing conditions, the Competent Authority has been pleased to direct that the advocates may wear 'plain white-shirt/white-salwar-kameez/white saree, with a plain-white neck band' during the hearings before the Supreme Court of India through Virtual Court System till medical exigencies exist or until further orders," said the notification, issued by apex court Secretary General, Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar. Besides sharing the notification on the apex court's website, it will be served to the secretaries of Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association to ensure compliance.The observation of the CJI and subsequent formal notification assumed significance in view of the fact that the apex court has been holding courts through video conferencing only from March 25 due to the nation-wide lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) and had even suspended the entry of advocates and other staff into the high security zone on the basis of their proximity cards, till further orders.Earlier during the day, the CJI and Justices Indu Malhotra and Hrishikesh Roy were not wearing their coat and gowns when they assembled for the hearing through video conferencing in the courtroom. The bench, which was hearing arguments of senior lawyer Kapil Sibal in a case, observed that the judges and the lawyers should not wear coat and gown for the time being as they make it easier "to catch virus". The impact of the observation was instant as the lawyers were seen appearing without coat and gown in cases heard after that through video conferencing. Earlier, the apex court on Tuesday said that as part of a pilot project, the judges may come to the courtrooms in the apex court premises from next week to hold proceedings through video conferencing. During the lockdown, the benches usually assemble at the residences of the judges and the lawyers are allowed to join the video conferencing from their homes or offices. SJK ABA MNL RKS MNL RKSRKS

SC asks lawyers not to put on coat, long gowns during COVID-19 pandemic

New Delhi, May 14 () The Bar Council of India asked lawyers across the country on Thursday not to wear coats and long gowns during the hearings through video conferencing before any court or tribunal as a "precautionary measure to check the spread of coronavirus infection".The apex bar body's direction came a day after the Supreme Court issued a notification asking lawyers appearing before it via video conferencing not to wear coats and long gowns."It is notified for information of all advocates of the country, that considering the medical advice and also the circular dated May 13, 2020 issued by the Supreme Court, all lawyers may wear 'plain white shirt/white salwar-kameez/white saree with plain white neck band' during hearing/ proceedings before all high courts and all other courts, tribunals, commissions and all other forums and no coat or gown/robes are/is required to be worn during such time period during which the threat of spread of corona virus looms large and/ or till such time the council further issues another administrative order modifying/ overriding this order."This administrative order is being issued as a precautionary measure to check the spread of corona virus infection under the present situation. This order will come into force with immediate effect and will be operative until further orders of the council," BCI's secretary Srimanto Sen said in the notification.The apex court on Wednesday came out with a similar notification for the lawyers appearing before it following one such observation by the Chief Justice of India S A Bobde.The apex court has been conducting hearing through video conferencing only since March 25 due to the nationwide lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19). It had even suspended the entry of advocates and other staff into the high security zone on the basis of their proximity cards, till further orders.During the proceedings on Wednesday, the CJI and Justices Indu Malhotra and Hrishikesh Roy were not wearing their coats and gowns when they assembled in the courtroom here for the hearing through video conferencing.The bench, which was hearing arguments of senior lawyer Kapil Sibal in a case, observed that the judges and the lawyers should not wear coat and gown for the time being as they make it easier "to catch virus".The impact of the observation was instant as the lawyers were seen appearing without coat and gown in cases heard after that through video conferencing. Earlier, the apex court had said on Tuesday that as part of a pilot project, the judges may come to the courtrooms in the apex court premises from next week to hold proceedings through video conferencing.During the lockdown, the benches usually assemble at the residences of the judges and the lawyers are allowed to join the video conferencing from their homes or offices. UK SJK SA

BCI asks lawyers not to wear coat, long gowns during COVID-19

New Delhi, May 13 () WhatsApp Inc told the Supreme Court Wednesday that it will not go ahead with the payment service scheme without complying with all the regulations that are in force in India.WhatsApp Inc said this before a bench, headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, which was hearing through video-conferencing a plea seeking directions to the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) and the RBI to ban the US-based firm's operations in the unified payment interface (UPI) ecosystem on its current model."Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 - WhatsApp Inc, makes a statement on behalf of his client that they will not go ahead with the payments' scheme without complying with all the regulations in force," the bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Hrishikesh Roy, noted in its order. The apex court issued notices to the Centre, WhatsApp Inc and others asking them to file their responses on the plea."Issue notice returnable after three weeks," the bench said. The plea, filed by Delhi-based think tank Good Governance Chambers, said that in February 2018 NPCI had accorded permission to WhatsApp Inc to provide its payment services under the UPI ecosystem. The plea has alleged that WhatsApp Inc, for the purpose of providing payment service, has not launched a 'dedicated app' for UPI enabled transactions but has embedded its 'messaging app' with UPI enabled feature. "Therefore the Respondent no. 3 (WhatsApp Inc) operates on a model wherein a social app has been bundled with the UPI enabled payment feature," the plea claimed, adding that this poses huge risk to the financial data of users. It alleged that data sharing policy of WhatsApp Inc is "inconsistent and non-compliant" with the applicable laws and guidelines issued by the NPCI and Reserve Bank of India and therefore, it cannot be permitted to operate under the UPI system. The plea has sought a direction to the NPCI to ensure a change of existing model of operations of WhatsApp Inc so that it is consistent with the scheme of UPI payment system.It said that NPCI and RBI should be directed not to permit WhatsApp Inc to offer its UPI payment service through its messaging app and rather ensure its operation only through a separate dedicated app. The plea has also sought directions for NPCI and RBI to run extensive user awareness campaign to educate them about data security and protect them against any online fraud.The bench has tagged the plea with another pending petition in the apex court which has claimed that WhatsApp has not fully complied with RBI's circular which prescribed data localisation norms.During the earlier hearing in the pending plea, WhatsApp had told the apex court that it is conducting a trial run of its payment service and will comply with the RBI norms on data localisation before launching the full service. ABA MNL SJK SA

Will not go ahead with payment service without complying with all norms: WhatsApp Inc to SC

New Delhi, May 6 () Taking note of difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants during nation-wide lockdown due to COVID-19, the Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the period of limitation prescribed under laws for initiating arbitral proceedings and the cheque bounce cases with effect from March 15 till further orders.The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provide fixed time periods to litigants to initiate arbitral proceedings and cheque dishonour cases. They become time-barred if filed after the statutory periods. The top court on March 23 had invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend limitation period of appeals from high courts or tribunals on account of coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and on Wednesday extended the same relief to lawyers and litigants for arbitral proceedings and cheque bounce cases."In view of this Court's earlier order dated March 23 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition …and taking into consideration the effect of the Corona Virus (COVID 19) and resultant difficulties being faced by the lawyers and litigants and with a view to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunal across the country including this court, it is hereby ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from March 15, till further orders to be passed by this court in the present proceedings," a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said in the order."In case the limitation period has expired after March 15 then the period from March 15, till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown," said the bench which also comprised justices Deepak Gupta and Hrishikesh Roy.In the proceedings held through video conferencing, the top court also issued to notice to the Centre, represented by Attorney General K K Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on the plea that such a relief from filing cases within a particular statutory time period be extended to all legal proceedings.The bench said that it would like to give such a reliefs but there cannot a "blanket order" and sought views of the Centre on it.Earlier, the apex court had taken suo-motu (on its own) cognizance of the problems faced by lawyers and litigants due to the pandemic in filing appeals from high courts or tribunals within fixed time and had extended that time by invoking its plenary powers under the Constitution."We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities," it had said.The top court had said that its order may be brought to the notice of all high courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction. SJK ABA MNL RKS RKSRKS

COVID-19:SC extends time for filing arbitral proceedings, cheque bounce cases from Mar 15

New Delhi, May 29 () The Supreme Court Friday issued notice to Tata Sons Pvt Ltd (TSPL) and others on a cross-appeal filed by Cyrus Mistry and his firm seeking removal of anomalies in the NCLAT order for getting representation on the TSPL board in proportion to the stake held by his family. The top court had on January 10 granted relief to Tata group by staying the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order of December 18 last year, by which Mistry was restored as the executive chairman of the salt-to-software conglomerate. A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy in Friday's proceedings, held through video-conferencing, also issued notice on the cross-appeal of Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd and tagged the plea with that of TSPL. "Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos...and connected matters, if any. In the meantime, pleadings be completed by the parties within a period of four weeks from today. List the matter(s) thereafter," the bench said in its order. Mistry, the ousted chairman of TSPL, is seeking representation in the company in proportion to the 18.37 per cent stake held by his family, the cross-appeal said. "The NCLAT by limiting the relief granted to the appellants (Mistry and others) in connection with their prayer for board representation, only to the remainder of Cyrus Mistry's tenure, has not secured the interests of the Shapoorji Pallonji group from any prejudicial conduct in the future. Therefore it was incumbent on this NCLAT to have granted proportionate representation that would have ensured that the interests of the SP Group are protected in future," it said. In the petition, Mistry has described the group's relationship with Tatas as "a quasi-partnership relationship of a vintage of over 60 years, holding 18.37 per cent in the equity share capital of Tata Sons and whose stake is now worth over Rs 1.5 lakh crore". According to the petition, the Mistry group firm has sought remedies for many anomalies in the NCLAT order, including about not looking at alleged oppression of minority shareholders as well as converting Tata Sons into a private limited company as a post-facto move. As per the petition, the tribunal order clearly and unequivocally found the prejudicial conduct by Tata Sons, but failed to provide certain important reliefs that would have put an end to the oppressive conduct of the majority shareholder. Reinstating Mistry as the chairman, NCLAT had also termed the action of the Registrar of Companies to allow conversion of Tata Sons into a private limited company illegal. However, the tribunal "has erred in not granting vital reliefs, including proportionate representation on the board of Tata Sons, and striking down of certain provisions in the articles of association, which were the tools of oppression that enabled prejudicial conduct by the majority shareholder," it said. The petition also contended that the tribunal erroneously said it did not have the powers to alter the Articles of Association even though it had correctly recorded that the relationship between the Tatas and the Mistry family was in the nature of a "quasi-partnership". Further, Mistry has sought proportionate representation on the board of Tata Sons to ensure that its interests and investments now worth over Rs 1 lakh crore are protected in the future. Mistry succeeded Ratan Tata as chairman of Tata Sons (TSPL) in 2012 but was ousted four years later. While taking note of appeal of Tata group on January 10, the apex court had stayed the NCLAT order restoring Mistry as executive chairman of the Tata Group, observing that there were "lacunae" in the orders passed by the tribunal. The apex court had said there was no prayer in the petition for reinstatement of Mistry but the tribunal (NCLAT) went ahead with it and ordered that. Tata Sons Private Ltd (TSPL) had challenged the December 18 decision of NCLAT that gave a big relief to Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd and Mistry, restoring him as the executive chairman of TSPL. The bench issued notices to Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd, Mistry and others and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks. SJK ABA MNL SA

SC issues notice to Tata Sons on cross-appeal of Mistry group firm against NCLAT order

Happy Birthday to legendary <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Bollywood+">Bollywood</a> mega star <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Amitabh+Bachchan">Amitabh Bachchan</a>! He turned 73 on Sunday. <keyword id="824043" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Business-Insider">Business Insider</keyword> India brings you 73 facts about the actor who has done approximately 200 films till date and counting. 
 
1. He was named Inquilaab. However, at the suggestion of fellow poet Sumitranandan Pant, Harivansh Rai changed his name to Amitabh. 
 
2. Although his surname was Shrivastava, his father had adopted the pen name Bachchan. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Amitabh+Bachchan">Big B</a> stuck to it. 
 
3. He is the tallest top star in Hindi cinema. His height is 74 inches or 1.88 m. 
 
4. Every filmmaker Bachchan approached thought he was too tall to be cast in a film. 
 
5. He studied from <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Kirori+Mal+College%2C+Delhi+University">Kirori Mal College, Delhi University</a>. 
 
6. He holds double master degree in arts. 
 
7. He was very keen to join the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Indian+Air+Force">Indian Air Force</a>, but couldn’t. 
 
8. His first job was with Shaw Wallace. 
 
9. He later worked as a freight broker for the shipping firm Bird and Co. 
 
10. His first car was a second-hand Fiat. 
 
11. He was rejected by the All India Radio after an audition test. 
 
12. He had spent a few nights on a bench in Mumbai’s Marine Drive. 
 
13. He made his debut in 1969 as a voice narrator in Mrinal Sen's ‘Bhuvan Shome’. 
 
14. He was also a voice narrator for <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/10-Indians-who-received-Asias-coveted-Ramon-Magsaysay-Award/articleshow/48280773.cms">Satyajit Ray</a>’s ‘Shatranj Ke Khiladi’ in 1977. 
 
15. He made his acting debut with ‘Saat Hindustani’, his only black and white film. 
 
16. Bachchan received Rs. 1,000 for his debut film. 
 
17. Comedian Mehmood offered him to stay in his own house during his struggling days. 
 
18. The superstar has given 12 consecutive flops before his first big hit ‘Zanjeer’. 
 
19. ‘Zanjeer’ changed his life for good. 
 
20. He chose his screen name to be Vijay for over 20 flicks. 
 
21. He met his wife Jaya for the first time at <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/Film-maker-Vivek-Agnihotri-says-you-cant-give-anyone-a-chance-to-run-FTII/articleshow/48051158.cms">FTII, Pune</a>. 
 
22. He married Jaya Bhaduri in 1973, the year when their film ‘Zanjeer’ released. 
 
23. Their film ‘Abhimaan’ was released only a month after their marriage and became a hit. 
 
24. Hrishikesh Mukherjee played the role of a mentor for both of them. 
 25. <keyword id="18536" type="PERSON" weightage="40" keywordseo="sunil-dutt">Sunil Dutt</keyword> signed him for a film only because he got a letter of introduction from late PM Indira Gandhi. 
 
26. During his struggling period, he was introduced to director Prakash Mehra by Kalyanji-Anandji. 
 
27. Bachchan has also worked as a playback singer, film producer and television presenter. 
 
28. He entered politics in support of long-time family friend Rajiv Gandhi. 
 
29. He won Allahabad seat of 8th <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Lok+Sabha+">Lok Sabha</a> by 68.2% votes. 
 
30. Amitabh-Jaya is the only real-life couple to have starred on-screen for 30 years from ‘Ek Nazar’ to ‘Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham’. 
 
31. Sholay, in which he played the role of ‘Jai’, released in 1975, becoming the highest grossing film of all time in India. 
 
32. In 1999, BBC India declared it the ‘Film of the Millennium’. 
 
33. He was diagnosed with ‘Myasthenia gravis’ after he suffered a near fatal intestinal injury during the making of ‘Coolie’. 
 34. He has played more double roles than any other actor in <keyword id="143" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Bollywood">Bollywood</keyword>. 
 
35. He is the most-nominated actors for popular film awards. 
 
36. His last film where actress Nirupa Roy played the role of his mother was ‘Lal Baadshah’. 
 
37. A 15-year press ban against Bachchan was imposed during his peak acting years by Stardust. 
 
38. Bachchan later claimed to have banned the press from entering his sets till late 1989. 
 39. He set up <keyword id="6357912" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="amitabh-bachchan">Amitabh Bachchan</keyword> Corporation, Ltd. (ABCL) in 1996. 
 40. ABCL was the main sponsor of the 1996 <keyword id="145" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="80" keywordseo="Miss-World">Miss World</keyword> beauty pageant in Bangalore, but lost millions. 
 
41. He was one of the judges for the 1995 Miss World beauty pageant. 
 
42. ABCL’s operations collapsed in 1997. 
 
43. The Bombay HC restrained him from selling off his bungalow 'Prateeksha' in 1999 to pay off his loans. 
 
44. He debuted in Malayalam film in 2010 directed by Major Ravi and co-starring Mohanlal. 
 
45. In 2013, he made his Hollywood debut in ‘The Great Gatsby’ opposite Leonardo DiCaprio. 
 
46. He was awarded with <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Padma+Shri%2C+Padma+Bhushan+and+Padma+Vibhushan">Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan</a> for his contributions to arts. 
 
47. The French government honoured him with its highest civilian honour Knight of the Legion of Honour. 
 
48. French director François Truffaut called him a "one-man industry". 
 
49. He started being called Big B in late 90s after his second comeback with ‘Mrityudaata’. 
 
50. Dr. Harvanshrai Bachchan had penned the song ‘Rang Barse’ for ‘Silsila’ and some lyrics for ‘Alaap’ and so is the poetry in ‘Agneepath’. 
 
51. He is a vegetarian and a teetotaler. 
 
52. He is the first Asian actor to have a wax model displayed at Madame Tussauds' in London. 
 
53. Amitabh Bachchan is ambidextrous. 
 
54. He was honoured with the 'Actor of the Century' award in 2001 at an Alexandria Film Festival in Egypt. 
 
55. Has been known to suffer from asthma. 
 
56. He shocked the unit of ‘Shootout at Lokhandwala’ by recording 23 scenes in 5 hours in 2006. 
 
57. It is said both his bungalows – Jalsa and Pratiksha - put together would be worth Rs. 160 crore. 
 
58. He likes collecting pens. The actor has a collection of over thousand pens. 
 59. He owns 11 cars, including one <keyword id="6415837" type="CITY" weightage="40" keywordseo="Lexus">Lexus</keyword>, two BMWs and three Mercedes. 
 
60. His favourite is the Lexus, which is bulletproof. 
 
61. In 2012, Amitabh Bachchan was given the due honour to carry the Olympic torch during the last leg of its relay in London's Southwark. 
 
62. In 2000, Bachchan hosted the first season of ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC)’, a big hit. 
 
63. Bachchan lent his voice as a narrator for ‘Lagaan’ released in 2001. 
 
64. He doesn’t like the word Bollywood, the word being used to describe the Hindi film industry. 
 65. In 2013, he bought a 10% stake in <keyword id="6436290" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="just-dial">Just Dial</keyword>. 
 
66. He holds 3.4% equity in Stampede Capital, a financial technology firm specializing in cloud computing. 
 
67. The Bachchan family bought shares worth $252,000 in Meridian Tech, a consulting company in U.S. 
 
68. Several books have been written about Bachchan such as Amitabh Bachchan: the Legend was published; To be or not to be: Amitabh Bachchan; AB: The Legend; Amitabh Bachchan: Ek Jeevit Kimvadanti etc. 
 
69. Bachchan himself wrote a book in 2002: ‘Soul Curry for you and me – An Empowering Philosophy That Can Enrich Your Life’. 
 
70. He allowed the use of his likeness for the comic book character Supremo in a series titled ‘The Adventures of Amitabh Bachchan’. 
 
71. In 2014, Australian La Trobe University named a Scholarship after Bachchan. 
 
72. He was named ‘hottest vegetarian’ by PETA India in 2012. 
 
73. Bollywood legend Amitabh Bachchan is by far the most followed Indian actor on <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Twitter">Twitter</a> with 17.2 million followers. 
 
 
(Image: Reuters)

You Searched For "hrishikesh roy" and got 9 results

Can you drive a light transport vehicle if you have an LMV licence? SC asks Centre to respond

PTI

Responsibility of Govt to design convenient tax system so that individuals can budget & plan: SC

PTI

Responsibility of Govt to design convenient tax system so that individuals can budget and plan: SC

PTI

SC asks lawyers not to put on coat, long gowns during COVID-19 pandemic

PTI

BCI asks lawyers not to wear coat, long gowns during COVID-19

PTI

Will not go ahead with payment service without complying with all norms: WhatsApp Inc to SC

PTI

COVID-19:SC extends time for filing arbitral proceedings, cheque bounce cases from Mar 15

PTI

SC issues notice to Tata Sons on cross-appeal of Mistry group firm against NCLAT order

PTI

73 things you must know about Amitabh Bachchan

Gunja Deo

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides