The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 12. 1986 land comprised within the plot nos. 1 to 16, possession of plot nos. The operations are seasonal in character and commence sometime in October at the close of the monsoon. certificate was received after cut-off date. Likewise if companies doing their own business lend their names to business transactions of other persons, those other persons cannot be heard to say that they are not taxable on the profits of these transactions for the reason that the companies were also carrying on their own business.
If those sales are sham, then the order of assessment must stand even if the intermediaries were real concerns, which had found their own capital and earned their own profits in other transactions. 1965 submitted with form No. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it was stated by the State that by order dated 27. Perusal of the documents reveals that Advocates (read here) the respondent-State has not come with clean hands which is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the State before the High Court in the writ petition.
1989 in the presence of panchas. 1, wherein total number of plots were shown as 1 to 16. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided by any other law for the time being in force. Section 19 – Property passes when intended to pass (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred.
The salt is manufactured not from sea water but from rain water which soaking down the surface becomes impregnated with saline matter. The question of the true status of the intermediaries would have assumed practical importance if they had done business other than the sales in question and had made profits thereon, and those profits were sought to be taxed as profits made by the appellant. If an individual A carrying on his own business lends his name to the business transaction of B.
2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W. 2000 after the Repeal Act came into force. Each agaria is allotted a patta and in general the same patta is allotted to the same agaria year after year. 16 to 23 and 36 to 43 was published in compliance with the provision contained in Section 45 of the Act and accordingly the possession of plot nos. Hence, in presence of two panchs possession of excess land as per particulars given therein was taken over.
Then the entire area is parceled out into plots called pattas and they are in four parallel rows intersected by the railway 155 lines. From perusal of panchnama dated 26. Advocates (click to find out more) The learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tej Pal Singh & The learned counsel contends that the stand of respondent-DSSSB is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and is also contrary to the settled proposition of law and guidelines issued on reservation and concession for candidates belonging to the reserved categories.
preparation of corrigendum, information to the appellant for the handing over the possession and finally taking over the possession have been done on the same date i. 16 to 23 and 36 to 43 was taken over on 26. We are therefore, constraint to hold that the case made out by the respondent-State the possession of plot nos. If that was so, then why sanction was sought by the authority of the respondent for notifying the corrigendum by letter dated 18.
However, it is stated that by corrigendum dated 26. 1573-1575 of 2013, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the learned single Judge, wherein it was held that the respondents are entitled to get their licenses renewed under the Catering Policy, 2010. 16 to 19 has been shown with boundary. certificate before the cut-off date of the application Advocates (read here) was introduced by the respondent-DSSSB only while declaring the result on 15.
2008, holding that the appellant was not eligible for selection of Advocates (read here) the post of Staff Nurse as the O. In that case, it would have been important to consider who found the capital for the concerns and who was running them. If the contention of the respondent is accepted, then Advocates (read here) according to the respondent everything i. In the particulars of land regarding the taken over possession plot nos. 1 to 16 of Village Nana mauva was declared excess.
But this has to be read with Section 97(1) of the Amendment Act, which reads: These words existed even prior to the amendment and are unaffected by the amendment. 1989, it is mentioned that the appellants were informed to remain present for handing over possession but the appellants had not remained present to hand over the possession. It would then be a legitimate contention for the appellant to advance that could not be done unless the intermediaries were found to have been really benamidars for it.
1989, instead of plot nos. the latter cannot escape the obligation to pay the tax on these transactions on the ground that A had also his own genuine business. Thus so far it could legitimately be submitted that, reading this part of the section in isolation it saves the local law. But here, the tax is levied only on the profits ostensibly earned by the intermediaries on the sales which stand in the books of the appellant in their names.
It is stated that the said order was passed relying upon the documents dated 6.