Advanced Search Results

Sial Sbec Bioenergy Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)866

just to inflate its non-taxable income. In this background the investigations were carried out by the AO. The first issue which the AO took and ultimately was confirmed by the CIT(A) was with regard to the claim … dictionaries have defined the energy and power to be the two names of the same entity, but in technological terms these are very different. According to the learned Departmental Representative, energy is defined as capacity to do … facts and circumstances of the case and in law in upholding the action of the AO to allow depreciation under Section 32 of the IT … the business of generation and supply of power. For the asst. yr. 2000-01, the assessee filed its return of income. In the return of income … to Sections 10(23)(f), 33B.(provisions pertaining to rehabilitation), Section 72A(7)(a)(3) (provisions relating to carry forward and set off

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

Prior to the enactment of the Aadhaar Act, the Aadhaar project was governed by the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides for punishment for disclosure of information in breach of law or

Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. The State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The bank accounts were seized and intimation in that behalf was given to the concerned Magistrate on 21st

Anusha Sudeep vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

offences alleged are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.2. The prosecution would allege that theaccused persons, who were employees under the de facto complainant in S.S.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Nre Coke Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)822

Aparna Project (P) Ltd. had been carrying on its business since April, 2000 i.e. the moment it applied for license to manufacture coke being the … to allow set off of brought forward losses of M/s Aparna Projects (P) Ltd. violating the conditions Under Section 72A as the company was not engaged in business for the last three years prior to the relevant assessment … the following case law in support of his argument that business is set up as soon as the first integral activity is performed by the assessee for the purpose of the said business:CIT v. Stones & Mineral … The return was selected for scrutiny assessment Under Section 143(3) of the Act, and assessment was completed on 29th Dec, 2006 at the figure of

Pratap H. Desai and ors. (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2008)116TT(JP.)at957

One is the case of succession by inheritance as provided in Section 78(2) and other is profit in Section 72A; and (3) a loss cannot be carried forward for more than 8 years.8. Thus, from the provisions of … set off of the losses of the firm against his income. As per Section 72 an assessee has right to carry forward of loss subject to the following restrictions: (i) The loss should be in a business … effect to while computing the income as per provisions of the IT Act. (iii) For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the … proviso to Section 72(1)(i) which is deleted with effect from asst. yr. 2000-01.7. The loss can be carried forward and set off only against the

Ms. Rakshha vs the State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

quash the FIR in Crime No.109/2024 dated: 14.05.2024 for the offences punishable Under Section 66 and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against he Petitioner/Accused which is pending on the … is sending emails from his official mail id to his personal mail id. The other offence is under Section 72A of the Act. The ingredients of the complaint would not become an offence under Section 72A even, as

Mr. Rahul Pandya vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

NO.1145 OF 2020 REJECTING THE ‘B’ REPORT, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 66, 66(C), 72(A) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AND SECTION 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND DIRECTING THE COMPLAINANT TO LEAD EVIDENCE ON 20-07-2024 AT DOCUMENT … is sending emails from his official mail id to his personal mail id. The other offence is under Section 72A of the Act. The ingredients of the complaint would not become an offence under Section 72A even, as

M/s Ib Track Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

of crime in Crime No.172 of 2019 on 16-07-2019 for offences punishable under Sections 66C and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC and pending before the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI M.N.KUMAR, CGSC, FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.172/2019 DATED1607.2019 BY THE1t RESPONDENT/POLICE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.1

K.R.Ravi Rathinam Vs. 1.The Director General of Police,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

the respondents 1 to 3 to take his complaint dated 01.11.2014 for the offences U/s 66B, 66E, 72, 72A, r/w 76 and 77 of the Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 109, 379, 403, 420, 468, 470, … both. The averments in the complaint and his statement would not make out an offence u/s 66B of the Information technology Act 2000. Section 66E of the Information technology Act 2000 deals with punishment for violation of privacy. Whoever, intentionally or knowingly