Taxation Laws Amendment Act 2006 Section 27 - Judgment Search Results

Khan Bahadur Chowakkaran Keloth Mammad Keyi Vs. Wealth Tax Officer, Ca ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1966Ker77; [1966]60ITR737(Ker)

the constitution it is now well scltled that while a taxation law cannot claim immunity from the equality clause of the equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws is being dented to him to adduce facts to prove right of individual partition was conferred by the madras marumakkathayam amendment act 1958 quite recently in muthia chettiar v wealth tax of the expression individual occurring in section 3 of the act according to shri nambiar the said expression would not comprehend section 20 1 would slill apply this section corresponds to section 25a of the indian income tax act 1922 the principle the kerala high court 59 in 1964 2 mad lj 273 a division bench of the madras high court sustained the

O. P. Aggarwal, Income-tax Officer, C-ward, Jullundur Vs. the State an ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1966]59ITR158(P& H)

matters being disclosed to others by section 9 of the taxation laws amendment act 1960 act no 28 of 1960 a made in section 59b which was inserted by the taxation laws amendment act 1960 also could be resorted to only in asked for this is clearly borne out by the various amendments made from time to time as mentioned above of 1872 no court shall save as provided in this act be entitled to require any public servant to produce before to supply or withhold information under sub section 1 of section 138 as it stands amended by the finance act 1964

Linkletter Vs. Walker

Court : US Supreme Court

promote state federal cooperation in law enforcement by rejecting the double standard of admissibility of illegal evidence which tends to breed for national purposes the court must decide according to existing laws and if it be necessary to set aside a judgment the federal courts evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment by state officers was turned over to federal officers and states with a view to prosecution under the civil rights act 62 stat 696 18 u s c 242 1958 ed cases see brown v state of mississippi 297 u s 278 1936 there was no question of retrospective operation involved in

Carrington Vs. Rash

Court : US Supreme Court

opinion that it is an established constitutional tenet that state laws governing the qualifications of voters are subject to the limitations the provisions of the fourteenth amendment the history of that amendment and the decisions of the court in this constitutional area entering such service means the time of commencing the current active duty a reenlistment after a temporary separation from service upon which provides in part notwithstanding any other provision of this section any member of the armed forces of the united states

Chandra Sekhar Misra Vs. Gobinda Chandra Das

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1966Ori18

a case of contemporaneous loan in other words if the agreement between the parties in respect of a contemporaneous loan is air 1956 mys 37 and 25 cult it 545 the amendment is therefore allowed allowing amendment of the plaint does not me cannot bring a suit on the original cause of action then alone the plaintiff s suit would fail and not clear legal position may be depicted by a short analysis section 4 of the negotiable instruments act 1881 defines promissory note

C. Umamaheswara Rao and anr. Vs. Sri Hanumandeswara Devasthanam Repres ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1966AP33; 1966CriLJ123

in itself the amendment which is asked for is not amendment in substance but only an amendment in form and number take into account the important fact that the court which acts under section 87 was an inferior criminal court whereas the result can be achieved if the court ordering delivery under section 87 not only describes the properties to be delivered by

Douglas Vs. Alabama

Court : US Supreme Court

violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment as applied to the states the statements from the document the trial court and enable it to take appropriate corrective action is sufficient to serve legitimate state interests and therefore sufficient at 493 495 the supreme court of alabama denied review 276 ala 703 163 so 2d 496 we granted certiorari 379

One 1958 Plymouth Sedan Vs. Pennsylvania

Court : US Supreme Court

to forfeit his property for alleged fraud against the revenue laws constituted an unreasonable search and seizure within the page 380 unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment boyd therefore stands for the constitutional principle that evidence secured say that the court below abused its discretion in so acting 201 pa super 145 150 191 a 2d 717 719 case the ground of forfeiture as declared in the twelfth section of the act of 1874 on which the information is 2d 211 c a 3d cir united states v carey 272 f 2d 492 c a 5th cir united states v

Stanford Vs. Texas

Court : US Supreme Court

pleased for goods imported in violation of the british tax laws they were denounced by james otis as the worst instrument the kind seized here might for purposes of the fourth amendment be constitutionally indistinguishable from other goods e g if the then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary page 379 u s 482 offenses each punishable by imprisonment for up to 20 years section 9 authorizes the issuance of a warrant for the purpose texas law see ex parte wolfson 127 tex cr r 277 75 s w 2d 440 accordingly we granted certiorari stanford

Estes Vs. Texas

Court : US Supreme Court

the courthouse itself on the evening of november 6 by agreement of counsel and special permission of the court the members shall be bound thereby any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding this is not is said however that the freedoms granted in the first amendment extend a right to the news media to televise from a defendant may be unable to prove that he was actually prejudiced by a televised trial just as he may be the canons of judicial ethics since approved by the judicial section of the integrated state agency state bar of texas the s 331 footnote 2 44 compare olmstead v united states 277 u s 438 277 u s 471 dissenting opinion of