Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.59 seconds)East India Tobacco Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 April, 1962
Classification of tobacco into luxury and non-luxury categories is valid vide East India Tobacco Co. v. State of A.P., AIR 1962 SC 1733.
Income Tax Officer, Shillong And Anr. ... vs N. Takim Roy Rymbai Etc. Etc on 17 February, 1976
vide WR Varma v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 1094; ITO v. NTR Rymbai, AIR 1976 SC 670.
Section 177 in Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Assam on 13 December, 1963
Similarly, where the State Legislature selects two articles, which are the main products of the State, for taxation, it is valid vide Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AIR 1964 SC 925.
Malwa Bus Service (P) Ltd vs State Of Punjab & Others on 28 April, 1983
A tax law is not discriminatory merely because different rates are prescribed for different items vide Malwa Bus Service v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 237.
The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. Ltd. Etc vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974
14. The classification of companies into domestic and foreign companies is valid vide Amalgamated Tea Estates Co. v. State of Kerala, 1975 UPTC 89.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd on 19 February, 1964
The State has a wide discretion in selecting the objects or persons that it will tax vide Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, AIR 1964 SC 925 (941), and in order to tax something it is not bound to tax everything vide Orient Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 98; State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries, AIR 1964 SC 1179. It can pick and choose objects, areas, persons, rates, etc.
Gopal Narain vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 3 September, 1963
Thus, a house tax imposed by a municipality only on Civil Lines Area is not invalid vide Gopal Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 370.