Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.25 seconds)
Viani Papers vs Fast Track Team on 12 January, 2009 cites

Suraj Mall Mohta And Co vs A. V. Visvanatha Sastri And Another on 28 May, 1954

7. As far as the question whether Section 17D is constitutionally valid, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case reported in Suraj Mall-Mohta and Co. v. A.V. Visvanatha Sastri and another (AIR 1954 SC 545). That was a case where resort was made to Section 5(4) of the Taxation On Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. Therein, the Court taking note of the provisions contained in Section 5(4) found that Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the procedure prescribed by the impugned Act in so far as it affects the persons proceeded WPC. 15659/08 L 13 against, deprives of the right of appeal, second appeal and revision petition and it is a discriminatory legislation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is void and unsustainable. In that case, no doubt, the Commission was headed by a Judge of the High Court. The Court held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 199 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

The Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd vs Municipal Corporation Of City Of ... on 26 April, 1999

Again in St.Mary's School v. Cantonment Board, Meerut ((1996) 7 SCC 484) the provision required deposit of disputed tax in court for maintaining an appeal against assessment under the Cantonments Act, 1924, the court applied the decision in Shyam Kishore's case already referred to. The decision in Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad ((1999) 4 SCC 468) was also a case under the property tax under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and there the court held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 90 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

St.Mary'S School And Ors.Etc vs Cantonment Board, Meerut & Ors on 5 February, 1996

Again in St.Mary's School v. Cantonment Board, Meerut ((1996) 7 SCC 484) the provision required deposit of disputed tax in court for maintaining an appeal against assessment under the Cantonments Act, 1924, the court applied the decision in Shyam Kishore's case already referred to. The decision in Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad ((1999) 4 SCC 468) was also a case under the property tax under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and there the court held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next