Advanced Search Results

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)

Just Rights For Children Alliance Vs. S. Harish

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

children over the internet.145. The aforesaid was due to the fact that, the IT Act prior to the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (for short, the ‘2008 Amendment Act’), criminalized only one act being the publication or transmission of obscene material, … is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the Act, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the

Anilkumar vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the PoCSO Act’), and Section 66E and 67A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.4. Annexure-A2 is the statement of … Annexure-A2. What is mentioned in page No.4 is that, while the de facto complainant was studying in the 9th standard, the petitioner had subjected her to sexual intercourse. From the materials on record, it is seen that

Justice k.s.puttaswamy(retd) Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

off and implementation of the Aadhaar scheme.7) On March 03, 2006, approval was given by the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India for the project titled ‘Unique Identification for BPL Families’ … Special treatment to children (vii) Section 6 - Update of information (viii) Section 7 (ix) Section 8 (x) Section 9 (xi) Chapter IV - Sections 11 to 23 (xii) Sections 23 and 54 - excessive delegation (xiii) Section … inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution refers inter alia to security of person, while … have challenged the Aadhaar project which took off by way of administrative action in the year 2009. Even after Aadhaar got a shield of statutory

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, … items on Snapdeal and the consequences of violation (“Prohibited Seller Activities and Consequences Policy”). Crl.P. No.4676 of 2020 9 & Crl.P. No.4712 of 2020 4.4.4. Seller Agreement: which contains the basic terms and conditions of selling products

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, … items on Snapdeal and the consequences of violation (“Prohibited Seller Activities and Consequences Policy”). Crl.P. No.4676 of 2020 9 & Crl.P. No.4712 of 2020 4.4.4. Seller Agreement: which contains the basic terms and conditions of selling products

Dominic Thomas vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

First Class Magistrate charging the petitioner under Section 65, 43 read with Section 66 of the Information Technology(Amendment) Act, 2008. True copies of Mahazar and seizure list prepared by the Circle Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Thiruvananthapuram are … JUDGMENT DTD.THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 967 DTD. POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 15 DTD. POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P14

S.Bharath Kumar Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Court : Chennai

in Crime No. 9 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC and 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 has filed this quash petition.2. The de facto complainant/the Senior AdministrativeOfficer of 2nd respondent Institution lodged a complaint … Mr. Gopakumar, ICMR-NIRT, No.1, Sathyamoorthy Road, Chetpet, Chennai - 600 031. ..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in connection with Crime No. 9 of 2025 on the

Mahadev Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

Subject : Right to Information

to Section 275 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Act 5 of 2009 (Code of Criminal Procedure amendment) Act, 2008, which runs as follows:"Provided that evidence of a witness under this Sub-Section may also be recorded by Audio-Video … with reference to a particular document then the summons to witness must be accompanied by a duly - 9 - NC:2023. KHC-K:6386 CRL.P No.200953 of 2023 certified photocopy of the document. The original document should be exhibited

Jibin vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

registered for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant.3. According to the prosecution, on 12.10.2023 and on 30.10.2023,the accused … and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].7. I have perused Annexure A2 affidavit filed by the 2ndrespondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted