There is no specific authority who has been designated as being the ‘competent authority’ to measure distance between the land sold and the municipal limits.
Jacob Puliyel Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The Petitioner was a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) and was advising the Government of India on vaccines. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner highlighted the adverse consequences of emergency approval of vaccines in India, the need for transparency […]
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana (Supreme Court) Facts- By an earlier order dated 15.5.2009 [reported in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2009 (7) SCC 363], we had referred to the ill – effects of what is known as General Power of Attorney Sales […]
IRunway India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT bangalore) Facts- The assessee filed its ROI for AY 2015-16 on 27 November 2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 52,289,620 under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The AO passed the assessment order dated 26 December 2017 u/s 143(3) of the Act making […]
The rule of contra proferentem thus protects the insured from the vagaries of an unfavourable interpretation of an ambiguous term to which it did not agree.
Chelluboyina Nagaraju Versus Molleti Ramudu Alias Vijayalakshmi (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Facts- The plaintiffs, sisters, filed suit to declare their title and for recovery of possession. In the plaint, it was contended that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the mother of plaintiffs and that their mother executed a registered gift settlement deed in […]
A.O. had rightly endorsed the corroborated claim of the assessee in this regard, the PCIT, in our view, has attempted to substitute his wisdom by views of the A.O. without any definite basis. If the view of the PCIT towards the banakhat allegedly hollow or unenforceable is accepted, no income can be recognised at all.
The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was also issued at Cuttack. The return of income for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also filed at Cuttack. The final assessment order dated 29th December 2017 for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also passed at Cuttack. We are of the view that we should not entertain this writ application and relegate the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orrissa at Cuttack.
Jaganadhan Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Facts- The Government of Kerala amended the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 by introducing Section 27A, whereby applications for user of unnotified land for other purposes was permitted. A fee was prescribed for granting permission for such user. On 25.7.2021, the Government issued a […]
The appellant falls into the criteria of an eligible passenger. He is thus allowed to import gold jewellery upto 10 kilograms by paying appropriate customs duty. The currencies seized from him are sufficient to pay the customs duty for the gold carried by him.
