COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION (Lodging) NO.2701 OF 2018
1 Jan 1970...
Search Results for "section 33a"
150 result(s) found
Found 150 result(s)
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeals on Interpretation of 'Assessed' in Section 18A(3) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court Holds That Provisionally Assessed Persons Are Not 'Hitherto Not Assessed' and Not Liable for Failure to File Advance Tax Estimates Under Section 18A(3), Upholding High Court's Quashing of Penalty and Interest Orders.
20 Aug 1968The case arose from demands of interest and penalty made by the Income Tax Officer, Kanpur against four partners—Mani Ram, Jagmohan, Kishandas, and ...
- 79
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Deficit Stamp Duty Demand in Development Agreement Case — Delay and Lack of Speaking Order Render Proceedings Invalid. Section 33A of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 invoked after 10 years without proper application of mind; order set aside.
31 Jan 2024The Petitioner, Axayraj Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (now Moongipa Realty Pvt. Ltd.), a developer, entered into a Development Agreement with D.N. Nagar Shree A...
- 48
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Examines Whether Industrial Tribunal Exceeded Jurisdiction Under Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act While Rejecting Approval for Dismissal. Tribunal's Findings on Victimisation and Disproportionate Punishment Without Pleadings and Beyond Limited Prima Facie Review Challenged.
10 Mar 2023The writ petition arose from an industrial dispute where the management of Bata India Limited challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalo...
- 51
High Court
High Court Allows Writ Petition Quashing Stamp Duty Order as Time-Barred and Without Jurisdiction Under Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 -- Development Agreement Not Deemed Conveyance Due to Subsequent Flat Purchaser Agreements
3 Feb 2026The petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26 April 2014 passed by the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, P...
- 533
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Revision Petition Under Section 264 of Income Tax Act Despite Retrospective Amendment After Assessment Order. Commissioner Must Consider Retrospective Amendment as Law Deemed to Exist on Date of Assessment Order.
22 Dec 2014The petitioner, Kalpesh M. Nagda, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2003-2004 on 25 November 2003, declaring total income of Rs.48,22,312...
- 116
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Upholds Validity of Premium Floor Area Ratio Scheme and Rejects Challenges Under Articles 14, 21, 243ZE, and 300A of Constitution. Section 18-B of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Section 38-D of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 Held Not Violative of Constitution, and All Impugned Notifications Sustained.
15 Jun 2026The matter concerns a batch of cases challenging the constitutional validity of statutory provisions introducing the Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) sc...
- 87
High Court
High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench Sets Aside Sessions Court Order in Election Affidavit Non-Disclosure Case. Court Holds Mere Cognizance of Criminal Case Not Disclosure Requirement Under Section 33A(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1951; Upholds Dismissal of Complaint.
3 May 2018The revision applicant, a politician and Chief Minister of Maharashtra, contested the 2014 State Legislative Assembly election from Nagpur South-West ...
- 65
High Court
High Court of Bombay Adjudicates Election Petition No. 1 of 2009 Concerning Rejection of Nomination Paper. The core issue is whether non-mention of the constituency in the nomination form constitutes a defect of substantial character under Sections 33(1) and 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
23 Dec 2011The petitioner filed his nomination for the Mumbai North Central Parliamentary Constituency on 9 April 2009. The Returning Officer accepted the nomina...
- 54
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Petition Declaring Dismissal Void for Breach of Section 33(1)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act — Employer Dismissed Workman During Pending Conciliation Without Prior Permission. The court held that the order of dismissal passed in violation of the statutory prohibition under Section 33(1)(b) is void ab initio and the workman is entitled to be treated as in continuous service with all consequential benefits.
30 Jan 2023The petitioner, Rajendra Dwarkanath Bakre, was appointed as a clerk in the Bank of India on 20.01.1984. His services were terminated on 12.02.1991, wh...
- 25
