<?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>2016 (5) TMI 1597 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307103</link>
    <description>The court held that the demand for Irrigation Potential Restoration Charges (IRC) at the revised rate of Rs. 1 lakh per hectare was illegal and unsustainable. The respondents were directed to calculate IRC at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per hectare with interest. The petitioner was granted four weeks to deposit the balance amount after accounting for previous payments. The writ petition was partly allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2023 21:47:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=707948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1597 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307103</link>
      <description>The court held that the demand for Irrigation Potential Restoration Charges (IRC) at the revised rate of Rs. 1 lakh per hectare was illegal and unsustainable. The respondents were directed to calculate IRC at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per hectare with interest. The petitioner was granted four weeks to deposit the balance amount after accounting for previous payments. The writ petition was partly allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>