Search Results for "section 33(4)"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...
Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones ...

Search Results for "section 33(4)"

520 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 520 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice in Income Tax Case Due to Lack of Fresh Material. Reopening Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Based on Mere Change of Opinion on Provision for Unascertained Liabilities is Invalid.

26 Feb 2024

The petitioner, Bajaj Auto Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 29 November 2016, declaring total income of Rs. 4,860,25...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Revenue Appeals in Income Tax Special Audit Time Extension Case. Assessing Officer Had Suo Motu Power to Extend Time Under Section 142(2C) Even Before 2008 Amendment.

26 Mar 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed the Revenue's...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Considers Writ Petitions Filed by Employees of Survey Sections in Various Tahsildar Offices. Relief Sought and Final Decision Not Specified in Available Text.

26 Feb 2014

...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Specific Performance Suit — Agreement to Sell BDA Allotted Site Within Prohibited Period Held Unlawful. Court sets aside decree for specific performance as the agreement violated Rule 18(2) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1972, which prohibited alienation for ten years.

18 Jan 2022

The case involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a site allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The first defe...

High Court

KAHC010159832015_1

15 Dec 2017

...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Rectification Application by Applying Principles of Section 14 of Limitation Act to Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act. Principles of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to rectification applications under Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944, even though no express power to condone delay exists.

5 Oct 2017

The petitioners, IVP Limited and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 6 March 2009...

High Court

High Court of Bombay Hears Builders' Challenge to Provident Fund Coverage of Casual Construction Workers. Para 26(2) Amendment to Provident Fund Scheme Removes Waiting Period, Requiring Membership from Date of Joining.

28 Feb 2006

Three writ petitions were filed by builders—Sandeep Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., M/s. R.B. Constructions, and Builders Association of India with its members�...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Recovery of Excess Payments from In-Service Nursing Trainees Under Restitution Principle. Recovery Permitted as Payments Were Made Pursuant to Court Order Later Set Aside, Distinguishing Mistaken Payment Guidelines Under Rafiq Masih Case for Class III and IV Employees.

29 Mar 2022

The dispute originated from in-service employees of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service, working as ANMs, Lab Technicians, and similar ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Port Trust to Seize and Dispose of Third-Party Goods Under Section 6 of Public Premises Act. The Court held that Section 6 of the PP Act is independent of the Major Port Trusts Act and permits disposal of goods found on public premises even if they belong to third parties without privity of contract.

21 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court considered appeals arising from a Full Bench reference of the Calcutta High Court concerning the interpretation of Section 6 of the ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Development Charges Under U.P. Urban Planning Act, Quashes Other Levies as Unauthorized. The Court holds that only development fees under Section 15(2-A) are valid, while inspection fee, sub-division charges, stacking charges, and impact fee imposed via executive orders under Section 41 are ultra vires and violative of Article 265.

28 Apr 2023

The Supreme Court disposed of a group of appeals arising from common judgment(s) of the Allahabad High Court concerning the validity of various demand...

2 3 4 5 6

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)