Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (1.56 seconds)
Documents citing Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others And Industrial ... on 23 July, 1996

Teachers Recruitment Board vs K.Bommi on 11 January, 2019

In Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Union of India [(1996) 9 SCC 709.], the Supreme Court has held that unless policy decision is inconsistent with Constitution or law, Court must exercise jurisdiction with circumspection, particularly when the issues are intertwined with policy decision and technical issues. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limitedv. Union of India [AIR 1990 SC 1277 : (1990) 3 SCC 223.], the Apex http://www.judis.nic.in Court held that the Court does not possess the expertise 94 required to determine the matter, and the determination has been made by experts appointed by the Government."
Madras High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M/S Shree Rajmoti Inds.,, ... vs The A. C.I.T., Circle-2(1),, ... on 27 September, 2023

In these facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that decision of Honable Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Product Private Limited (supra) is not applicable to the case as the facts are clearly distinguishable. It is not a simple case of assessee making wrong claim and Assessing Officer denying it. In this case there is no doubt that Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank is not subjected to dividend distribution tax and therefore provision of section 10(34) did not apply to assessee. Therefore making claim of exempt income is not merely a case of legal claim not have been sustainable under law but case of misrepresentation of facts and furnishing incorrect particulars of income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Balasore Alloys Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties on 3 November, 2023

2.1. Pursuant to the judgment dated 23.07.1996 of the Supreme Court of India in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (1996) 9 SCC 709, a part of the Sukinda Chromite Block was retrenched from TISCO and was granted to other Chrome-based Industries, one of which is the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company was granted mining lease over an // 4 // area of 100.063 hectares, which consists of 64.463 hectares non-forest land and 35.600 hectares forest land for which terms and conditions were issued, vide letter dated 24.05.1999, and it was accepted instantly by the petitioner-company on 25.05.1999. 2.2. The petitioner-company, vide letter dated 03.12.1999, requested for splitting of the mining lease area into two parts, i.e., 64.463 hectares of non-forest area and 35.600 hectares of forest land. In pursuance of the request letter, the ML area granted to the petitioner- company was splitted into two blocks i.e. 64.463 hectares of non-forest block and 35.600 hectares of forest block, vide order dated 16.02.2000 issued by the State, and petitioner-company was requested to furnish two separate mining plans with due approval of IBM. Accordingly, the subject mineral block consisting of 64.463 hectares non-forest land was granted to petitioner-company and a lease deed was executed on 15.07.2000. After having obtained all the required clearances, petitioner-company commenced with the mining operations from September, 2000. The said // 5 // mining lease was granted as captive mining lease and the minerals produced from the subject mineral block are entirely consumed in the two captive ferro chrome plants of petitioner-company, of which one is situated at Balasore, having a capacity of 145000 TPA (Ton Per Annum) with an investment of Rs.615 crores with 2000 employees working, and the other at Sukinda, having a capacity of 15660 TPA with an investment of Rs.31 crores with 250 employees working. Throughout the mining operations, the subject mineral block was treated as a non-forest area, right from the beginning, i.e., from September, 2000 till 2015. The State Government, Central Government, IBM, MoEF & CC and all other concerned entities accepted the position that the subject mineral block consisted entirely of non- forest area.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next