Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Maria Olivia Carvalho And Ors. on 16 July, 1985

Jaiwant Laxman P. Sardesay And Etc. Etc. vs Government Of Goa, Daman And Diu And Anr. ... on 28 January, 1987

It was contended that the view taken by the Division Bench in Union of India v. Maria Olivia Carvalho, that the enhanced rate of fifteen per centum per annum prescribed under the proviso must be awarded in all cases is not correct. It was urged thag payment of such enhanced interest is nt mandatory but its grant llies exclusively in the discrition of the Court reliance was placed on the use of the expression 'may' both in S. 28 and the amended proviso to contend that the grant of enhanced rate of interest is not a must in every case, but lies witin the dicretion of the Court In support of the soubmission reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court .
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. S.M. Natu on 28 January, 1997

8. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India v. Smt. Maria Olivia Carvalho, placed at pages 12 to 14 of the paper book. He pointed out that the amended provisions of section 23(1A) were examined by the Bombay High Court and on the similar facts the decision was rendered in favour of the assessee. In fact, the said decision of the Bombay High Court fully supports the case of the assessee and, therefore, the learned counsel supported the decision of the CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Mytheen Pillai Muhammed Kannu And Ors. on 14 March, 1996

In Union of India v. Smt. Maria Olivia Carvalho, AIR 1986 Bombay 1, a similar question arose. The contention was that the claimants had to pay Court fee on the additional compensation as well as the increased solatium and interest as provided under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Repelling the objection it was held since the additional compensation as well as increased solatium and interest were being awarded on account of statutory provisions of law, the claimant has no liability to pay Court-fee on these amounts.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jaiwant Laxman P. Sardesai And Etc. Etc. vs Government Of Goa And Anr. Etc. on 28 January, 1987

It was contended that the view taken by the Division Bench in Union of India v. Maria Olivia Carvalho, that the enhanced rate of fifteen per centum per annum prescribed under the proviso must be awarded in all cases is not correct. It was urged that payment of such enhanced interest is not mandatory but its grant lies exclusively in the discretion of the Court. Reliance was placed on the use of the expression "may", both in Section 28 and the amended proviso, to contend that the grant of enhanced rate of interest is not a must in every case, but lies within the discretion of the Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Gurbachan Singh And Others on 13 September, 2017

13. Learned counsel for the appellant initially submitted that there was a notification by the State Government, that the State Government and its corporations are exempted to pay court fee, but subsequently he fairly conceded, that despite his sincere efforts he could not find out the said notification of paying the court fee of Rs.10/- or state and its corporations are exempted from payment of court fee. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ,Union of India vs. Smt. Maira Olivia Carvalho & Others, AIR 1986 (1) and submitted that court fee is not payable on interest part. Relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - L P Singh - Full Document
1