Advanced Search Results

Smt.Annamma Mathew, vs State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

petitioner herein is the fourth accused in CBCID Crime No.58/CR/EOW-1/KLM/2017 for offences punishable under Section 65 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 and under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code … Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner was granted bail by the Court of theEnquiry Commissioner and Special

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Electronics (DoE) with the support of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The program was focused on integrating information technology and internet tools with learning environment, to enhance the quality of education. However, funding by the UNDP ended … clause (i), if the other conditions laid down therein were satisfied.” 5 Section 4(3) of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, reads as follows: “(3) Any income, profits or gains falling within the following classes shall not be … exemptions: Section 10 (20A) and Section 10 (23) ................................................... 20 G. Amendments to Section 2 (15) by Finance Act, 2008 (w.e.f. 01.04.2009) ................................................ 21 II. Submissions of parties ................................................................................................................................. 22 A. Arguments on behalf of the revenue.......................................................................................................... 22 … "GIDC case"). 32 (2009) 16 SCC20833 2017 SCCOnline Bom 10021 (para 10-12) 34 (1965) 1 SCR909(hereafter “Navnit Lal Jhaveri”) 31 executive’s understanding - in the

Vodafone International Holdings B.V., a Company Incorporated Under the ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 1(2), 2, 2(17), 2(23A), 2(31), 2(37), 2(47), 4, 4(1), 4(2), 5(2), 9, 9(1), 23(1), 23(3), 24, 26, 64, 64(2), 173, 191, 192(1A), 194, 194C(1), 195, 195(1), 195(2), 195(3), 197, 199, 200, 201, 203A, 221, 221(1), 201(1A), 245S, 246A and 271C; Foreign Contribution Regulation Act; Indian Official Secrets Act; Constitution Act; Information Technology Act; Indian Passport Act; Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 18, 19 and 42; Finance Act, 2008; Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; MRTP Act - Sections 33; Finance Act, 2002 - Sections 201; Companies Act; Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 2008 - Sections 191 and 201; Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 2002; Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 2003; Income Tax Rules - Rules 30 and 31A, 41E; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1

Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR258; (2008)220CTR(Bom)649; [2009]311ITR46(Bom)

Matched in: Citation 2009(4)BomCR258; (2008)220CTR(Bom)649; [2009]311ITR46(Bom)

Suraj S/O Anandu Naik vs the State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND SECTION 67(A) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008 AND SECTION 376(2)(n), 384, 355, 504 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF

Myspace Inc. Vs.super Cassettes Industries Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

enunciated thereunder. This court is conscious that a significant amendment to this provision took place in 2008; the Information Technology Amendment Act was brought into force on 5 February, 2009. However, that amendment brought in greater clarity to the nature … The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if- FAO(OS) 540/2011 Page 34 the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by … orders, SCIL argued that MySpace, by using its content without licence or any authority committed infringing activities under Section 51(a)(i) and 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act (hereafter “the Act”).It argued that the moment MySpace communicated SCIL‟s works

Snapdeal Private Limited Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

is an intermediary as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and is therefore entitled to the exemption from liability in terms of Section 79 Information Technology Act, 2000, … role.39. Apart from the fact that the Complaint lacks necessary ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC, it is to be noted that the concept of ‘vicarious liability’ is unknown to criminal law. As

Sri. Kunal Bahl Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

is an intermediary as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and is therefore entitled to the exemption from liability in terms of Section 79 Information Technology Act, 2000, … role.39. Apart from the fact that the Complaint lacks necessary ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC, it is to be noted that the concept of ‘vicarious liability’ is unknown to criminal law. As

M Moser Design Associates India Pvt Ltd vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

legal canvass. The canvass spreads to vast and varied enactments - Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended by Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (‘Act’ for short); Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 … allegation. On 09-11-2024, the crime in Crime No.876 of 2024 comes to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66C and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). … - Xiaomi2. Shareit 32. WeSync3. Kwai 33. ES File Explorer4. UC Browser 34. Viva Video-QU Video Inc5. Baidu map 35. Meitu6. Shein 36. Vigo Video7.

Sahadevaprasad Urf Prasad S/O Dahanprasad Yadav vs the State of Karnat ...

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

SENTENCE DATD 03.01.2013 IN C.C.NO. AND CJM, AT DHARWAD, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 66(C) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (AMENDED) ACT 2008 AND U/SEC. 380 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FROM THE ABOVE … Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘IT Act’) and Section 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and ordered to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/-

Muhammed Sadhique P K vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Subject : Right to Information

offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.3. The prosecution case is that, while the defactocomplainant was studying Online share trading through You Tube, the