Madras High Court seeks Centre’s response to plea against retrospective amendments to Income Tax Act 1961
Madras High Court seeks Centre’s response to plea against retrospective amendments to Income Tax Act 1961
Follow:
- Next story ஒரு வாக்கு வித்தியாசத்தில் வெற்றி பெற்ற, திருப்பத்தூர் தொகுதி தவெக எம்எல்ஏ சீனிவாச சேதுபதி வெற்றியை எதிர்த்து, திமுக முன்னாள் அமைச்சர் பெரிய கருப்பன், சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் தேர்தல் வழக்கு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளார்.
- Previous story Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar of #MadrasHighCourt adjourn to next month a writ petition filed by film director S. Shankar in 2025 to quash provisional attachment of three of his properties worth ₹10.11 crore by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a case related to a copyright row over Rajinikanth starrer Enthiran. The court had on March 11, 2025 stayed the operation of the provisional attachment order passed on February 17, 2025. Today, the judges were told that a connected matter is pending before the Supreme Court. @THChennai Backgrounder👇
Recent Posts
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024 C.M.A.(MD).No.696 of 2024 S.Naveen … Appellant Vs. M.Nitharshani …Respondent
- ஒரு வாக்கு வித்தியாசத்தில் வெற்றி பெற்ற, திருப்பத்தூர் தொகுதி தவெக எம்எல்ஏ சீனிவாச சேதுபதி வெற்றியை எதிர்த்து, திமுக முன்னாள் அமைச்சர் பெரிய கருப்பன், சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் தேர்தல் வழக்கு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளார்.
- Madras High Court seeks Centre’s response to plea against retrospective amendments to Income Tax Act 1961
- Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar of #MadrasHighCourt adjourn to next month a writ petition filed by film director S. Shankar in 2025 to quash provisional attachment of three of his properties worth ₹10.11 crore by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a case related to a copyright row over Rajinikanth starrer Enthiran. The court had on March 11, 2025 stayed the operation of the provisional attachment order passed on February 17, 2025. Today, the judges were told that a connected matter is pending before the Supreme Court. @THChennai Backgrounder👇
- https://youtu.be/Br7p1a12Xso?si=IukWgMYM9AdRz6tw [15/06, 12:35] sekarreporter1: [15/06, 12:00] sekarreporter1: A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, on Monday, dismissed Original Side Appeal Nos. 62 and 63 of 2026, which had been preferred against the order passed by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy permitting
More
Recent Posts
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN C.M.A.(MD).Nos.696 and 697 of 2024 and C.R.P(MD).Nos.2029 and 3231 of 2023 & 2086 of 2024 C.M.A.(MD).No.696 of 2024 S.Naveen … Appellant Vs. M.Nitharshani …Respondent
- ஒரு வாக்கு வித்தியாசத்தில் வெற்றி பெற்ற, திருப்பத்தூர் தொகுதி தவெக எம்எல்ஏ சீனிவாச சேதுபதி வெற்றியை எதிர்த்து, திமுக முன்னாள் அமைச்சர் பெரிய கருப்பன், சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் தேர்தல் வழக்கு தாக்கல் செய்துள்ளார்.
- Madras High Court seeks Centre’s response to plea against retrospective amendments to Income Tax Act 1961
- Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar of #MadrasHighCourt adjourn to next month a writ petition filed by film director S. Shankar in 2025 to quash provisional attachment of three of his properties worth ₹10.11 crore by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a case related to a copyright row over Rajinikanth starrer Enthiran. The court had on March 11, 2025 stayed the operation of the provisional attachment order passed on February 17, 2025. Today, the judges were told that a connected matter is pending before the Supreme Court. @THChennai Backgrounder👇
- https://youtu.be/Br7p1a12Xso?si=IukWgMYM9AdRz6tw [15/06, 12:35] sekarreporter1: [15/06, 12:00] sekarreporter1: A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, on Monday, dismissed Original Side Appeal Nos. 62 and 63 of 2026, which had been preferred against the order passed by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy permitting