Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.90 seconds)Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Pollution Control Board Odisha vs M/S Swastik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Anr on 9 January, 2014
We note that in NMDC case (supra), Hon'ble Hydrabad Tribunal followed
decision of Hon'ble Kolkatta High Court in the case of ShyamSel Ltd (supra) and
State Pollution Control Board vs. Swastik Ispat (P) Ltd (supra), wherein identical
types of payments made to remedy the river pollution caused by the parties
were held to be compensatory in nature. Hence the provisions of Explanation 1
to sec.37 will not apply to these payments. We also note that Hon'ble Supreme
Court at page 171 observed that, these payments are necessary to be made by
the mining lease holders. Hence there is merit in the submission of Ld.Counsel
that, without making these payments, assessee could not have resumed the
mining operations. Hence, these expenses are incidental to carrying on the
business and hence allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act."
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Indian ... vs C.I.T. West Bengal on 24 April, 1961
(c) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC)
8.12.2. Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original
return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised
return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1983
In M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India &Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 395, this
Court not only reiterated the view adopted in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha (supra) but also held that the power under Article 32 would
be both injunctive as well as remedial and the power to grant
remedial relief, naturally, would extend to a wide range of
situations and cannot be put in a straight jacket formula.
M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986
In
fact, these articles have been extensively discussed in the judgment in
[M.C. Mehta case (2004) 12 SCC 118] which keeps the option of
imposing a ban in future open."
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
In the case of M C Mehta vs. Union of India (2009)(6 SCC), it was
contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot exercise powers under Article
142 of the Constitution when specific provisions are made under various forest
and environmental laws dealing with the manner and procedure for
cancellation/determination of mining leases. This argument was rejected by
Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following observations:-
Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 25 September, 2014
We do not see how or why we should lie entrapped
within the confines of any of the relevant Statutes on the strength of the
views expressed in Supreme Court Bar Association (supra). The
observations made in para 48 of the judgment and the use of words
"ordinarily" and "are directly in conflict" as appearing in the said
paragraph (underlined by us) directly militates against the view that the
lease holders would like us to adopt in the present case.