Section 21 Of The State Act For Revising The Assessment Orders And For Rectification Of The Earlier Order Under Rule 38 Of The State Rules - Judgment Search Results

international Cotton Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1975]35STC12(Kar)

..... article during the relevant period were validated proceedings were therefore instituted under section 21 of the state act for revising the assessment orders and for rectification of the earlier order under rule 38 of the state rules with a view to secure recovery of tax already refunded to .....

H.Y. Jadhav Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1979KAR1673; [1981]48STC496(Kar)

..... before the assessing officer under rule 38 of the karnataka sales tax rules 1957 for rectification of the assessment orders and to ..... order against the said order the assessee has preferred these revision petitions under section 23 1 of the act iv before the division bench the petitioner relying on the earlier ..... as in the previous years as stated earlier this position is also not controverted by .....

M/S M/S. Arora Enterprises, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad Vs. the Deputy Comm ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... order of revision passed under section 20 2 of the act but against the endorsement of the deputy commissioner refusing to entertain an application for rectification of the mistake under rule 50 of the apsgt rules section 21 1 b of the act is not attracted under section .....

M/S.Ahlcon Ready Mix Concrete (P) Ltd Vs. the Assistant Commissioner o ...

Court : Karnataka

the protective assessment order dated 22 9 2010 passed under section 38 5 of the kvat act order passed under section 9 2010 passed under section 38 5 of the kvat act order passed under section 47 3 of the kvat act of the constitution of india praying to quash the protective assessment order dated 22 9 2010 passed under section 38 5 the constitution of india praying to quash the protective assessment order dated 22 9 2010 passed under section 38 5 of 15 9 2010 but one day prior thereto the impugned order is passed thus on the short ground of nor afford if any and proceed to pass the order under section 38 5 read with section 52 1 of kvat act needless

Dr. P. Raghupathi Vs. Dr. R.G. Lavi

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1987KAR670

district judge both the c r ps are filed under section 115 c p c 5 limited as the scope of 3 appreciating evidence the court granted eviction decree under section 21 1 h and granted six months time the order was by granting short extension so that he can accelerate and activise his search for accommodation 10 on the facts of this dated 19th april 1986 4 as against this order two revision petitions are filed one by the tenant is c r was assessed as undisclosed income for block period in block assessment held the assessment of undisclosed income relating to block period the landlord who has acquired a legal right under the orders of the court below cannot be put at disadvantage without for retirement hence this c r p is allowed impugned order granting three years time is set aside time is granted are filed one by the tenant is c r p 3850 of 1986 and the other by the landlord in c

Cit Vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [2005]146TAXMAN733(All)

local authority and is therefore not entitled to exemption under section 10 20 of the act 5 in this view of reference relates to the assessment year 1983 84 2 briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as was exempt under section 10 20 of the income tax act 1961 the reference relates to the assessment year 1983 84 by the government of u p during the course of assessment proceedings the respondent assessee claimed its status as a local 20 of the act and cancelled the assessment order which order has been upheld by the tribunal 3 heard sri a orderthe income tax appellate tribunal allahabad has referred the following question

Smt. Govindamma Vs. Murugesh Mudaliar and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1991Kant290; ILR1990KAR2639

lease by issuing a notice in writing as required under section 111 g of the transfer of property act this proposition air 1919 pc 1 42 mad 589 17 alj 552 21 bom lr 655 in our view this argument also does it necessary to repeat the same it is sufficient to state that the provisions of the act apply to robertsonpet k used in sub section 1 of section 21 of the act to indicate ordinary civil court exercising its ordinary civil jurisdiction the grounds enumerated therein and further provides a remedy of revision to a specified court it excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary and 6 12 1967 requesting the change of khata of assessment no 683 393 in their favour respectively sriyuths m k the courts which alone can have jurisdiction to pass an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or words excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary civil court to passan order for recovery of possession of the premises to which the the principle of forfeiture on disclaimer is founded on the rule that a man cannot approbate and reprobate at the same the principle of forfeiture on disclaimer is founded on the rule that a man cannot approbate and reprobate at the same

H.C. Gargi Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1987SC65; (1987)ILLJ102SC; 1986(2)SCALE380; (1986)4SCC158; 1986(2)LC558(SC)

costs quantified at rs 1000 interest act 14 of 1978 section 3 r v raveendran j m panchal jj compound interest to watch his performance during the years in question the state government in the return filed before the high court contested benefits upon that basis costs quantified at rs 1000 interest act 14 of 1978 section 3 r v raveendran j m the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs the impugned order passed by the state government dated february 1 1985 for sale agreement lessee agreeing thereunder to pay instalments from period earlier to execution of agreement no protest made possession of house interest the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant order rule 3 25 d of the rules must therefore be appellant was retired under rule 3 25 d of the rules as the of the appellant order rule 3 25 d of the rules must therefore be struck down as being arbitrary 3 accordingly

Emperor Vs. Kadhe Mal

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1920)ILR42All24

witness since deceased cantonments act c a no 41 2006 section 346 cantonment fund servants rules 1937 rules 13 14 15 not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2 21 held the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions the definition of being recognised is concerned it includes as stated above four directors the divisional boards and four state boards the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees 13 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc deolali cantonment board v usha devidas 13 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc deolali cantonment board v usha devidas the cantonment fund servants rules 1937 can file appeal under rules 13 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any released act no i of 1812 indian evidence act section 38 evidence admissibility of statement made by a witness since deceased c a no 41 2006 section 346 cantonment fund servants rules 1937 rules 13 14 15 h l gokhale ag cj

Empress of India Vs. Ram AdhIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1880)ILR2All139

section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established regulations act 1978 act no 3 1978 sections 9 2 21 jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment 10th and 12th standard examinations the state board advises the state government on policy matters ensures uniform pattern of secondary and is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties the duties of the cantonment board 13 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc deolali cantonment board v usha devidas 13 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc deolali cantonment board v usha devidas covered under rule 2 f of the cantonment fund servants rules 1937 can file appeal under rules 13 14 and 15 the cantonment fund servants rules 1937 can file appeal under rules 13 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any