Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT held that civil courts and the tribunal lack jurisdiction to determine cultivation rights, which fall exclusively within the revenue courts' purview. The appellants had transferred cultivation rights via sub-leases to third parties, thereby forfeiting any right to repossess those rights. Additionally, as the appellants were not recorded owners in revenue records, they possessed no authority to evict the sub-lessees for alleged breaches under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the sub-lessees' rights. The appeals were dismissed on these grounds.
The AT held that civil courts and the tribunal lack jurisdiction to determine cultivation rights, which fall exclusively within the revenue courts' purview. The appellants had transferred cultivation rights via sub-leases to third parties, thereby forfeiting any right to repossess those rights. Additionally, as the appellants were not recorded owners in revenue records, they possessed no authority to evict the sub-lessees for alleged breaches under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the sub-lessees' rights. The appeals were dismissed on these grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
