Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: information technology act 2000 section 60 · Page 1 of about 957 results (0.055 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

May 24 2006

Firos Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : May-24-2006

Subject : Media and CommunicationIntellectual Property Rights

Acts : Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 70, 70(1) and 81; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 17, 60 and 61; Constitution of India - Articles 19(1) and 226; Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999; Limitation Act - Sections 60 and 61; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 34

Reported in : AIR2006Ker279; 2006(3)KLT210; 2007(34)PTC98(Ker)

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant/petitioner approached this Court for declaring that Section 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is unconstitutional and unenforceable and also for issuance of a writ of … Government without registration of the copyright and even without a declaration of copyright by the civil court under Section 60 of the Copyright Act. If any party claims that he has got a copyright and the Government cannot

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 07 2006

Jainarayan Moolchand Agrawal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur

Decided on : Jul-07-2006

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)109ITD275Jab

reply to above notices the assessee submitted a letter dt. 29th May, 2000 stating the additions have been deleted by the Hon'ble Bench of Tribunal, … the objection as raised should be dropped.4. When after recalling of the order, the case was fixed for first hearing on 6th April, 2006, the assessee's counsel requested for adjournment which was granted and the assessee's counsel … response thereto, the assessee asserted in the written communication that his case falls under Section 253(6)(d) of the Act as the appeal is against the penalty and not against the quantum, so the fee of Rs. 500 … March, 2005 relevant to asst. yr.1991-92 whereby confirmation of penalty of Rs. 60,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) has been challenged.2. This appeal was earlier treated

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 03 2007

Smt. Mina Deogun Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-03-2007

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Kol.)121

in a residential let out property, situated at Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.7.1 The facts giving rise to the first two material issues are as follows : A residential house property at 47, Golf Links, New Delhi, was … not striking down the reference to the Valuation Officer made by the AO under Section 55A of the Act and was not justified in upholding the reference under Section 55A(2)(b) even though the said provision was not

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Jan 27 2016

K. Ramajayam @ Appu Vs. The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Poli ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-27-2016

Subject : Criminal

- Section 3, Section 25, Section 114, Section 45, Section 45A, section 76, Section 62, Section 65B - Information Technology Act, 2000- Section 2, Section 2(t), Section 2, Section 79A - Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 - burglary and murder €“ … described as "fruit of the poisonous tree" and American Courts frown upon them (See: Nardone v. United States, 60 S.Ct. 266). The 94th Law Commission Report suggested to the Parliament to bring in similar provisions into our

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 13 2004

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Fertilizer Traders [Alongwith

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-13-2004

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(All.)473

entries of two sets and gave the copies of printsout. It is necessary to mention that as per information supplied by the counsel for the assessee, the position of the regular returns of both the assessees are … on facts in upholding the validity of the order dt. 4th Oct., 2000 that had been passed earlier by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Gorakhpur … against different orders of the CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dt. 14th Aug., 2002 passed under Section 158BC/154 of the IT Act, 1961.3. In both the cases of the assessees, undisclosed income was computed and thereafter it was bifurcated in … printout was shown to him for 1997. The entries reflected at p. 603 and 604 was interrogated. He refuted the payments appearing therein and claimed

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 12 2014

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Uoi and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-12-2014

Subject : MRTP

and protection of children; (l) declare “fit persons”; (m) declare a child legally free for adoption; (n) keep information about and take necessary follow-up action in respect of missing children in their jurisdiction; Crl Rev.No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 … the matter was to be examined in the light of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (‗JJ Act, 2000‘ hereafter) and not by the Magistrate under Section 17A of the IT Act, 1956. It … the facts and circumstances of the case. Crl Rev.No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 51 60. Section 29 is concerned with the provision of a Child Welfare Committee

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 29 2004

Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Decided on : Jul-29-2004

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)236

agreed : (a) not to divulge to third parties without the consent of the Swiss company any confidential information received under the agreement; (b) Without the written consent of the Swiss company, not to assign the benefit … royalty, the assessee explained its case as per letters dt. 24th Jan., 2000 and 10th March, 2000.7. The assessee relied upon the agreement with SWC … M/s Balbir Distillery would pay royalty of Rs. 60. Balance amount of Rs. 40 termed as bottling … rendered by them. The payment of royalty is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of carrying out business activities only. These expenses are clearly in the nature of revenue expenditure and, therefore, are fully allowable. The treatment … facts and circumstances has erred in deleting the disallowance of royalty under Section 35A or 40A(2) amounting to Rs. 5,27,35,429. 2. The learned CIT(A) in

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 30 2004

Shamraj Moorjani Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-30-2004

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)93TTJ(Hyd.)927

against separate but identical orders of the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad, dt. 27th Oct., 2000, IT(SS)A No. 31/Hyd/2000 is filed by a partnership firm consisting of three … The tax payable on this income returned amounted to Rs. 43,12,708, i.e., 60 per cent of Rs. 75,16,763. Along with the block returns of income, … enable him to pay the tax. It was also stated in the said letter that the Dy. CIT informed them that necessary permission would be given for selling the property and directed them to search for purchasers. … paid the taxes as per the admitted income, by invoking the provisions of Section 249(4)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The facts of the case are as follows.3. Shri Shamraj Moorjani, Shri Devraj Moorjani and Shri Vishnukumar

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 29 2002

Rajeev Enterprises Vs. Assessing Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur

Decided on : Aug-29-2002

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2003)78TTJ(JP.)330

that having regard to the heads of income mentioned in Section 14 of the IT Act, it is first to'be seen whether the income falls under the head "business". In case the income does not fall under … from two concerns, namely, M/s S.K. Gems and M/s Jaipur Trading Co. Out of total receipts of Rs. 60,357, the assessee paid interest of Rs. 813 and this way credited net interest of Rs. 59,544 to the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 29 2011

Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. Vs. Myspace Inc. and Another

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-29-2011

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1, 2, 4 - Section 20 (c); Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 79; Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 51(a)(i); Engraving Copyright Act, 1734; Telegraphs Act 1863; Specific Relief Act, 1963

acts of the defendants are those of intermediatory and are protected under the provisions of Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000. The said provision will act as safe harbor provisions of US Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") whereby the … SC 159. 34. More Recently Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B Desai (Dr.),(2003) 4 SCC 601, has accepted the evidence by way of video conferencing as a valid one where the person being tried

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial