Naidu Guru, ILR 34 Madras 151; Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

1 SCR 676Reported decision1962#21766 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 1991 to 2024.

Judgments citing Naidu Guru, ILR 34 Madras 151; Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

M/S Ayush Ajay Construction Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT Central-(1), Indore

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Ayushajay Construction Pr.Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore. बनाम/ 3/3, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca 5523 B Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the award was made by the Civil Judge although an appeal was pending against that award. The learned Judges referred to the nature of an award made by the Collector, and adverting to the opinion of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Dy. LAO [1962] 1 SCR 676 that the award made by the Collector was merely an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of the property on the acquisition, the High Court observed : ''. . . the legal position which emerges is that there is no liability in praesenti to pay an enhanced compensation till it is judicially determined by the fina…

M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1743/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri H.Chakraborty, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…e orders were barred by limitation as they had been made only long after the prescribed period of five years. The matter wasdealt with in detail by this Court. Relying on the decisions in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer [1962] 1 SCR 676, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395, State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram AIR 1970 SC 214, B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat AIR 1978 SC 1109 and the earlier decision of this Court in T. R. C. No. 6 of 1981, to which the Acting Chief Justice was a party, it was stated: Any authority on which power is conferred, the exercise of which power wo…

The Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs. M/S M.M. Rubber & Co

C.A. No.-006071-006071 - 1990Supreme Court04 Sept 1991

For Respondent: M/S. M.M. RUBBER & CO. TAMIL NADU

Section 35ESection 35E(1)Section 35E(3)Section 35E(4)Section 35LSection 3S

…pass. It is not passed so long it is open to him to tear off what he has written and write something else." In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisi- http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9 tion Officer & Anr., [1962] 1 SCR 676 construing the proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which prescribed for applications seeking reference to the Court, a time limit of six weeks of the receipt the notice from the Col- lector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award whichever first expires, this Court held that the si…