<?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>1981 (11) TMI 184 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169535</link>
    <description>Section 69(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was held to refer to the municipal taxing powers as they stood when exercised, so later amendments creating and defining property tax could be relied on by the special area development authority. The special property-tax provisions operated on their own terms and did not require the general municipal procedure for imposing taxes. Companies wholly owned by the Government of India remained separate juristic entities, so their lands and buildings were not exempt as Union property. The levy also stayed within State legislative competence and was not barred by any agreement or estoppel. The property-tax demands were upheld and the appeals were dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2015 11:13:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (11) TMI 184 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169535</link>
      <description>Section 69(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was held to refer to the municipal taxing powers as they stood when exercised, so later amendments creating and defining property tax could be relied on by the special area development authority. The special property-tax provisions operated on their own terms and did not require the general municipal procedure for imposing taxes. Companies wholly owned by the Government of India remained separate juristic entities, so their lands and buildings were not exempt as Union property. The levy also stayed within State legislative competence and was not barred by any agreement or estoppel. The property-tax demands were upheld and the appeals were dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>