Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 218 (8.40 seconds)
Documents citing Patel Gordhandas Hargovindas vs Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad on 28 March, 1963

M/S. Navbharat Potteries Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Ganpatraj Badanraj Mehta vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Vardhan Developers vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Spark Developers vs The Commissioner,Mcgm And 2 Ors on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Shri. Desmond John Nicholas D'Silva And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Rajendra Brijratan Mohatta And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Narendra Amritlal Sheth And 3 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Tulsidas Khimji And 2 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

St Annes Chruch And Anr vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 24 April, 2019

188. It is true that the petitioners have set out certain examples in support of their case which may show that the amount of tax levied on the basis of capital value method in certain cases may appear to be exorbitant. We must note here that the BMC has filed an affidavit in the lead matter and has placed material on record demonstrating that under the new regime, in several cases, as compared to the earlier rateable value regime, the amount of property taxes have drastically gone down. Thus, on facts, it can be shown both ways. Some of the persons liable to pay property taxes will be benefited and some will not be benefited. Moreover, the cases in which amount of tax appears to be on the higher side is due to applicability of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015. Considering the findings which we have recorded on the validity of some of the rules contained in Capital Value Rules, the figures quoted by way of illustration by the petitioners may not be valid any longer. Even assuming that in some cases, it may appear that the amount tax to be excessive or exorbitant, that does not per se make the legislation confiscatory. As pointed out earlier, even in the case of Patel Gordhandas (supra), the Apex Court has not struck down the rules per se on the ground that the taxes payable as per the offending rules were confiscatory in nature.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next