<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (4) TMI 197 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99788</link>
    <description>A special statute referring generally to municipal taxation powers was treated as a reference to the municipal law as amended from time to time, so later taxing provisions remained available to the development authority. Sections 127A and 135 were held to be self-operative charging provisions, making ordinary municipal tax-imposition procedures unnecessary before recovery. A company&#039;s assets were not treated as Union Government property merely because the Union held all shares, and the corporate veil was not lifted without statutory basis. A private agreement could not bar exercise of statutory taxing power or invalidate the demand notices, so the property tax levy and recovery were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:29:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (4) TMI 197 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99788</link>
      <description>A special statute referring generally to municipal taxation powers was treated as a reference to the municipal law as amended from time to time, so later taxing provisions remained available to the development authority. Sections 127A and 135 were held to be self-operative charging provisions, making ordinary municipal tax-imposition procedures unnecessary before recovery. A company&#039;s assets were not treated as Union Government property merely because the Union held all shares, and the corporate veil was not lifted without statutory basis. A private agreement could not bar exercise of statutory taxing power or invalidate the demand notices, so the property tax levy and recovery were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>