Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... particulars of the pre- payment, which was to be made by the petitioner-company under 12 the notification for tax deferment benefit, which was amended on 24.8.2007. since no objection was received from the director, commercial taxes department, the petitioner-company made pre- payment in september, 2009 and communicated ..... stand restored indisputably. . 9. m/s ambuja cement rajasthan limited (acrl) was declared a sick industrial company under the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985, on which by order dated 20.6.2001, the board for industrial financial re-construction (bifr) commenced proceedings for revival of the company. a7scheme ..... petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents-state of rajasthan.2. the petitioner no.1 is a public limited company registered under the indian companies act, 1956 with its registered office at ambujanagar, taluka kodinar, district ghirsomnath, gujarat. the petitioner no.2 is shareholder and vice-president of the company .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... smt. dakh kanwar thereafter did not appear and ex-parte proceedings were drawn against her. both the parties did not lead further evidence. only the issue no.1 was amended and sum of rs.1,600/- regarding the consideration was indicated. after hearing the parties, the trial court again dismissed the suit. the trial court came to the ..... hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.arvind samdariya, for the appellant/s. ---- by the court: this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2007 passed by the additional district judge, deedwana, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2001 passed by the civil judge ..... no right; it was also claimed that as smt. dakh kanwar did not give prior notice to the plaintiff, the same was contrary to the rajasthan pre-emption act. it was prayed that the sale deed dated 30.10.1973 in favour of the defendant- nandkishore be declared void, decree for specific performance be granted regarding sale .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... reportable by the court: (per hon'ble dinesh maheshwari,j.) this appeal by the revenue under section 260-a of the income tax act, 1961 [the act] is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2007 as passed by the income tax appellate tribunal, jodhpur bench, jodhpur [the tribunal] in ita no.596/jdpr/2006 in relation to the ..... supported the order impugned with reference to the decisions in cit vs. gupta fabs: (2005) 274 itr 62.(p&h) and cit vs. dr.l.m.singhvi: (2007) 289 itr 42.(raj.). after having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that the question of law as ..... in the following:- 5. these provisions under s. 32ab are pari materia with the provisions relating to certain benefits extended to assessees under ss. 80 and 80hhc of the it act. for the present purposes primary requirement of s. 32ab (1) is (i) that total income of assessee must include income chargeable under head 'profit and gains of business .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... finality and non-acceptance of the judgment may lead to challenge in appeal. but, it appears from the conduct of the respondent state that since 2007 inspite of judicial pronouncements and amendment made on 28.01.2011 the state government is adamant not to decide the pending applications. in the case of ram pravesh singh (supra) ..... but the state government while exercising its pwer under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development & regulation) act, 1957 made amendment in the rules only to undo and nullify the directions issued by this court, therefore, the amendment made under sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules ..... into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is generally agreed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... finality and non-acceptance of the judgment may lead to challenge in appeal. but, it appears from the conduct of the respondent state that since 2007 inspite of judicial pronouncements and amendment made on 28.01.2011 the state government is adamant not to decide the pending applications. in the case of ram pravesh singh (supra) ..... but the state government while exercising its pwer under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development & regulation) act, 1957 made amendment in the rules only to undo and nullify the directions issued by this court, therefore, the amendment made under sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules ..... into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is generally agreed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... finality and non-acceptance of the judgment may lead to challenge in appeal. but, it appears from the conduct of the respondent state that since 2007 inspite of judicial pronouncements and amendment made on 28.01.2011 the state government is adamant not to decide the pending applications. in the case of ram pravesh singh (supra) ..... but the state government while exercising its pwer under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development & regulation) act, 1957 made amendment in the rules only to undo and nullify the directions issued by this court, therefore, the amendment made under sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules ..... into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is generally agreed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... finality and non-acceptance of the judgment may lead to challenge in appeal. but, it appears from the conduct of the respondent state that since 2007 inspite of judicial pronouncements and amendment made on 28.01.2011 the state government is adamant not to decide the pending applications. in the case of ram pravesh singh (supra) ..... but the state government while exercising its pwer under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development & regulation) act, 1957 made amendment in the rules only to undo and nullify the directions issued by this court, therefore, the amendment made under sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules ..... into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is generally agreed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... finality and non-acceptance of the judgment may lead to challenge in appeal. but, it appears from the conduct of the respondent state that since 2007 inspite of judicial pronouncements and amendment made on 28.01.2011 the state government is adamant not to decide the pending applications. in the case of ram pravesh singh (supra) ..... but the state government while exercising its pwer under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development & regulation) act, 1957 made amendment in the rules only to undo and nullify the directions issued by this court, therefore, the amendment made under sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules ..... into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is generally agreed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... finality and non-acceptance of the judgment may lead to challenge in appeal. but, it appears from the conduct of the respondent state that since 2007 inspite of judicial pronouncements and amendment made on 28.01.2011 the state government is adamant not to decide the pending applications. in the case of ram pravesh singh (supra) ..... but the state government while exercising its pwer under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development & regulation) act, 1957 made amendment in the rules only to undo and nullify the directions issued by this court, therefore, the amendment made under sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules ..... into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is generally agreed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... finality and non-acceptance of the judgment may lead to challenge in appeal. but, it appears from the conduct of the respondent state that since 2007 inspite of judicial pronouncements and amendment made on 28.01.2011 the state government is adamant not to decide the pending applications. in the case of ram pravesh singh (supra) ..... but the state government while exercising its pwer under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development & regulation) act, 1957 made amendment in the rules only to undo and nullify the directions issued by this court, therefore, the amendment made under sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules ..... into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is generally agreed .....
Tag this Judgment!