Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
16 judgments · newest first · showing 1–16
The Cantonment Board, Meerut issued show‑cause notices under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 to respondents including Afzal, alleging unauthorised construction within the cantonment. The respondents objected, but the primary authority neither referred to the objections nor mentioned the …
The Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) of Kota, created under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, claimed exemption from income tax under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that it qualified as a "local authority" within the meaning of clause (iii) of the explanation – i.e., a …
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), created under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, challenged income‑tax notices on the ground that it qualified as a "local authority" and was therefore exempt under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the …
Jagat Pal Singh Cheema, a Section Officer of the Cantonment Board, Jammu, was removed from service following a departmental inquiry. The Board later reconsidered the decision, and its President referred the matter to the Officer Commanding‑in‑Chief (OCIC) under Section 51 of the Cantonments Act, …
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee (AMC) of Narela claimed exemption from income tax under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting it was a "local authority". The Finance Act, 2002 added an exhaustive Explanation to section 10(20) defining "local authority" as a Panchayat, …
The Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (the Authority) challenged a notice issued by the Income Tax Department requiring the bank to deduct TDS on interest earned on its fixed deposits, arguing that its income was exempt under Article 289 of the Constitution and Section 10(20) of the …
The respondents applied to the Secunderabad Cantonment Board for sanction of a layout plan on land they claimed to own. The Board initially returned the plan for lack of an exemption certificate under the Urban Land (Ceiling) Act, but the High Court held that such a certificate was not required. The …
The respondents had executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the appellant and later claimed to be "debtors" under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979. The dispute turned on the meaning of the expression "not less than Rs. 1200" in the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act, which exempts persons …
The case concerned a bungalow and land in Sagar Cantonment that were recorded in the General Land Register as held on an "old grant" basis. The respondents purchased the property through four sale deeds, later amending the description from lease‑hold to old‑grant, and began construction without …
The vendors sold a bungalow in the Meerut cantonment to the vendee, with the agreement stipulating that the vendee must obtain permission from the Military Estate Officer (MEO) for the transfer. Clause 5 provided that if such permission were not granted, the vendee could be released from the …
The Cantonment Boards of Saugor, Mhow and Jabalpur imposed an entry tax on motor vehicles under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down the tax, holding that Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 barred any local authority from …
The respondent, a brick‑kiln owner, challenged a notification by the Mathura Cantonment Board that raised the tax on bricks from 0.19p to 0.75p per thousand, arguing that the Board derived no benefit and that the tax violated Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 …
The Supreme Court examined a dispute where M.P.J. Builders had been granted a building sanction under the Cantonments Act, 1924, but failed to commence construction within the stipulated period and later sought extensions of time after the sanction had lapsed and after new building bye‑law …
The petitioners, builders in Pune Cantonment, sought to have building plans submitted before the 1982 scheme of building restrictions sanctioned, arguing that the condition of converting their land to freehold and paying conversion charges was not a prerequisite. The Cantonment Board required …
The respondent, Subhash Chandra Yadav, was appointed as Sub‑Charge of the Cantonment General Hospital, Lucknow, and later transferred to Varanasi under Rule 5‑C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937. He challenged the transfer, arguing that Rule 5‑C, which permits inter‑Board transfers, …
