Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: information technology act 2000 section 79 · Page 1 of about 572 results (0.173 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.

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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 03 2007

Sanjay Kumar Kedia Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-03-2007

Subject : CriminalNarcotics

Acts : Indian Companies Act, 1956; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 12, 24, 29, 37 and 67; ;Control Substances Act; Information Technology Act - Sections 8 and 79; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1987; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 116

Reported in : 2008(221)ELT20(SC); (2008)2SCC294; 2007AIRSCW7902; 2008(2)SCC294; (2008)1SCC(Cri)346; 2008(1)Crimes26; 2008(2)KCCR865;

providers such as the two companies which were intermediaries were protected from prosecution by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. An affidavit in reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent - NCB and a rejoinder

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 30 2012

Nirmaljit Singh Narula Vs. Indijobs at Hubpages.Com and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-30-2012

Subject : MRTP

of defendant No.2, it is an „intermediary‟within the definition of Section 2(1) (w) and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act,2000, defendant No.2 is under an obligation to remove unlawful content

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Aug 10 2016

Tata Sky Ltd Vs. Youtube Llc and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-10-2016

Subject : Intellectual Property

Sky is bound to protect. Please be advised that this is an offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Section 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. .. Therefore, you are required to … defence is on the following lines: (a) Being an intermediary under the IT Act, is statutorily exempt under Section 79 from liability in respect of any third party video uploaded on the YouTube platform. (ii) The impugned links

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 14 2012

Nirmaljit Singh Narula Vs. Sh. Yashwant Singh and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-14-2012

Subject : MRTP

framed by the Press Council of India and also in violation of Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. Counsel also submits that the Plaintiff served the defendants a legal notice upon [email protected] sent for publishing all

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 12 2006

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs. Sri. C. Kenchappa and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-12-2006

Subject : Environment

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 47, 48A, 51A and 226; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 - Sections 3(1), 28, 28(1), 31 and 47; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966; Town Planning Act

Reported in : AIR2006SC2038; 2006(4)ALD84(SC); [2006(3)JCR319(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC556; 2006(4)KarLJ545; 2006(6)SCALE1; (2006)6SCC371

the Act. Sections 24, 29 & 37 & Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1987, Schedule I & Information Technology Act (21 of 2000), Section 79; Grant of Bail - Accused who has hosted websites providing third party data

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 … after considering the objections of the appellant with respect to the same." 79. The assessee is in appeal before us with the following grounds.Since the … 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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 07 2021

Snapdeal Private Limited Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-07-2021

Subject : Land Acquisition

regional, national and international brands and retailers. 4.2. Snapdeal is ‘intermediary’ as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’). An Crl.P. No.4676 of 2020 6 & Crl.P. No.4712 of 2020 … 4.15. It is contended that the above documents indicate the due diligence exercised by Snapdeal in accordance with Section 79(2)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read in conjunction with the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, in

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 07 2021

Sri. Kunal Bahl Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-07-2021

Subject : Land Acquisition

regional, national and international brands and retailers. 4.2. Snapdeal is ‘intermediary’ as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’). An Crl.P. No.4676 of 2020 6 & Crl.P. No.4712 of 2020 … 4.15. It is contended that the above documents indicate the due diligence exercised by Snapdeal in accordance with Section 79(2)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read in conjunction with the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, in

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 09 2005

Garrick D'Silva Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Decided on : Dec-09-2005

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Delhi)445

stock option by the assessee in the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1998-99. In response, the following information was furnished by the assessee in regard to grant, exercise and sale of stock options:S.No Date Grant/ Basis … shares, was liable to tax as income from 'capital gains'. This sub-Clause (iii)(a) was deleted by the Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 and a new proviso to sub-Clause (iii) of Clause 2 of Section 17 was … at Rs. 15,53,803 as under:Salary for the purpose of Rule 3 Rs. 79,98,038.1Salary as per Appendix I Rs. 79,98,038.1Acid : Housing contribution Rs. 10,02,083.6 Auto

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