Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 187 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 30 March, 2005

Ravi Rishi Educational Society , ... vs Acit Central Circle-2 (4), Hyderabad on 19 July, 2022

"It is now a well-settled principle of law that although the exemption provisions are to be construed strictl.yu as regards the applicability thereof to the case of assessee, once it is found that the same is applicable, the same are required to be interpreted liberally. [See Tata Iron & Steel. Co. Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand (2005) 4 RC 641; (2005) 4 SCC 272; 5 RC 379; (2005) 7 SCC 396 and CCE vs. Hira Cement (2006) 6 RC 219; (2006) 2 JT 369 (SC)].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Ltd vs Joint Secretary To The on 5 August, 2011

17.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgments, relied upon by the revisional authority in the order, has no application to the facts of this case, as the petitioner had complied with the terms of notification, and the claim raised was not by stressing the word, as was case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (2005) 4 S.C.C.272.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

M/S Daurala Sugar Works vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. on 26 October, 2018

In Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and, (2014) 1 SCC 536 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to the Full Bench Decision of the High Court of Delhi in Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) Vs. Delhi Admn. 1982 Lab IC 1309 (Del) and the judgments of the Supreme Court discussed therein, and approved the observation that the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and the matters incidental thereto, and it is not permissible for it to go beyond the term of reference.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Hides & Leather Products Pvt Ltd Thr ... vs State Of Gujarat Thro District ... on 19 July, 2016

11. Though much reliance has been placed by Mr.Sanjanwala on the decision in case of Tata Steel Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra), it is pertinent to note that in the said case also the Supreme Court after considering the provisions of the Grants Act as also the ratio of decision in case of Hajee S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen Bros.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

I.T.C. Limited vs State Of U.P. & Others on 23 December, 2011

69. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal refers to judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd vs. State of Jharkhand and others dated 14.8.2006 (2007) 6 VST 587 (Jharkh) in which similar provisions for expenditure of the entry fee collected by the State of Jharkhand were made. The Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof was amended to provide for similar benefits and provisions of Jharkhand Trade Development funds. The Act was not held to satisfy the requirement under Article 301 with Article 304 (b) of Constitution of India. The levy of entry fee was thus held as ultra vires Article 301 of the Constitution of India.
Allahabad High Court Cites 181 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Kalptaru Projects International ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 March, 2025

In the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 536 the Apex Court has Page 42 of 58 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 21:20:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12023/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2025 undefined held that the reference presupposes that the respondents workmen are the employees of the appellant. The reference also proceeds on the foundation that their services have been "transferred" to M/s. Lafarge. On these suppositions the limited scope of adjudication is confined to decide as to whether appellant is under an obligation to take back these workmen in service. Obviously, it is not the reflective of the real dispute between the parties. It not only depicts the version of the respondents workmen, but in fact accepts the same viz. they are the employees of the appellant and mandates the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal to only decide as to whether the appellant is required to take them back in its fold. On the contrary, as pointed out above, the case set up by the appellant is that it was not the case of transfer of the workmen to M/s Lafarge but their services were taken over by M/s. Lafarge which is a different company/ entity altogether. It is further held that though the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the terms of reference, but at the same time it is empowered to go into the incidental issues. Had the reference been appropriately worded, probably it was still open to the appellant to contend and prove that the Respondent workmen ceased to be their employees. However, the reference in the present form does not leave that scope for the appellant at all.
Gujarat High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next