Search Results Page

Search Results

61 - 70 of 1427 (5.15 seconds)
Documents citing Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018

As sentinels on the qui vive, Courts are duty bound to protect citizens against State compulsion, whether in the context of forcibly undergoing narco-analysis/lie detectors tests or forcibly undergoing sterilization. Compulsion can be used in limited circumstances such as punishment for law-breaking, compulsion in the aid of law enforcement, and compulsion to prevent potential law-breaking. These include fines, imprisonment, fingerprint collection for criminals and prisoners. Even in medical jurisprudence, the case of Common Cause v. Union of India83 elaborates on the concepts of dignity, bodily integrity and decisional autonomy. For DNA tests and blood tests to be conducted a high standard of evidence is required.
Supreme Court of India Cites 661 - Cited by 238 - A K Sikri - Full Document

The Acit (Central)-1, Indore vs Chitresh Mehta, Indore on 8 March, 2022

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India (2017) 30 ITJ 197 (SC) has again placed reliance on its earlier decision in the case of V.C. Shukla. The contention of the appellant that, no action has ever been taken against the appellant by the Enforcement Directorate or any other agency against the appellant has also been found reasonable and logical. The appellant been found indulged in any such hawala activities, the alleged transaction having taken place nearly 10 years back, some action would have been taken by the Enforcement Agencies. In my view, the findings of the AO that the appellant could not produce his passport due to misplacement thereof or his nexus with Shri Nilesh Ajmera , Shri Ritesh Ajmera etc., even if taken to be true, could not be a reason for holding that the appellant made any undisclosed investment in any property at Dubai. Even in my view, the findings of the AO in respect of a loose paper found and seized from the premises of some Shri Omprakash Dhanwani has no nexus with the issue in hands. In my view, the AO has relied upon the extraneous considerations for justifying his action of making the addition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Shri Jaya Pradeep, Chennai on 5 December, 2025

In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (supra), held that loose sheets of paper or diaries found during the course of search, which are not established to form part of the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee, do not constitute material evidence and, therefore, cannot be relied upon or used against the assessee. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Eassa E.K vs The Senior Geologist on 19 December, 2025

The Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India66 held that illegal mining takes within its fold the extraction of minor minerals without a mining plan, mining scheme, environmental clearance, mining lease or a statutory requirement, as the case may be, and would attract Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. It was also held therein that 65 2014 (1) KLT 536 66 2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC) WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:83:- any person carrying on mining operations without a mineral concession is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining. It has been further held that in case of illegal mining, the defaulter must bear the consequences of illegality and that 100% of the price of the legally or unlawfully mined mineral must be compensated by the defaulter.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Abdul Samad vs The District Geologist on 19 December, 2025

The Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India66 held that illegal mining takes within its fold the extraction of minor minerals without a mining plan, mining scheme, environmental clearance, mining lease or a statutory requirement, as the case may be, and would attract Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. It was also held therein that 65 2014 (1) KLT 536 66 2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC) WP(C) No.36843/2015 & conn.cases 2025:KER:97705 -:83:- any person carrying on mining operations without a mineral concession is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining. It has been further held that in case of illegal mining, the defaulter must bear the consequences of illegality and that 100% of the price of the legally or unlawfully mined mineral must be compensated by the defaulter.
Kerala High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document
Previous   3 4 5 6 7   8 9 10 11 12 Next