Advanced Search Results

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Fertilizer Traders [Alongwith

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

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

CIT(A) has erred in law and 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 under Section 154 r/w Section 158BC, … are directed 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

K.R.Ravi Rathinam Vs. 1. the Director General of Police

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

offences under Sections 66 B, 66 E, 72, 72 A r/w. 76 and 77 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 109, 379, 403, 420, 468, 470, 471 along with 120 (b) of IPC. The intellectual property … and the Respondents 8 and 10. Section 76 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 speaks of 'Confiscation' and Section 77 deals with 'Compensation, Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishment'. In short, there is no transaction

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

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Information technology Act 2000 rules, orders or regulations made there under has been or is being contravened. Similarly Section 77 of the Information technology Act 2000 deals with penalty if no penalty imposed or confiscation made under the … 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

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd.

Court : Uttaranchal

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2008)218CTR(Uttranchal)411

and no loss was incurred by the company/assessee ?In IT Appeal No. 77 of 2007.-Whether, Tribunal erred in law in upholding the decision of CIT(A) … facts and circumstances of the case, in allowing foreign exchange loss of Rs. 11,58,44,887 under Section 42 of the IT Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the loss is only a book entry and no loss was incurred … New Delhi, in ITA No. 1821/2005; ITA No. 1823/2005 and ITA No. 1824/2005, relating to asst. yrs. 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 1998-99, respectively, whereby the depreciation on account of foreign exchange loss allowed to the assessee by the

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. CochIn Malabar Estates and

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Coch.)434

No. 177/Coch/2003), the CIT(A) has held as under: The AO issued notice under Section 148 on 2nd March, 2000 for the similar reasons as in the asst. yr. 1987-88. The AO thereafter completed the assessment under Section … return of income for the asst. yrs.1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 under Section 139 of the IT Act on different dates. The assessments of the assessee were completed initially under Section 143(3), but subsequently proceedings were … of (35% of (35%of (35% of (35% of 5243973) 3465487) 12011353) 65352524) 77049334) 5266244) 17233198) 4. The assessee challenged the orders of the AO passed

Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)498

not been defined in the Act. However, it has been defined by Section 2(1)(i) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. As per the said Act, "computer" means any electronic, magnet, optical or other high speed data processing device … Honda Motor Ltd. v.Jt. CIT (2001) 72 TTJ (Pune) 72 : (2001) 77 ITD 393 (Pune) is of no help as the facts are different … claimed by the assessee and 2/3rd of the payments were disallowed under Section 92 r/w Section 37(1) of the IT Act.4. On appeal, the CIT(A), after having considered the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee company was

M.K.Rajagopalan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Court : Chennai

to the assessee either in paper form or through electronic mail. Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, 2000 provides that dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of … and not the proviso.vi)Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 4 SCC 77 , it reads as under :-24. Again, in A.L.A. Firm v. CIT … claimed as exempt income, derived by you with a detailed note of income as provided u/s 10 of the IT Act, 1961. 3.Cash flow statement for the previous year 2012-13. 4.Copies of all bank account (including deposits) held and

L’oreal vs.brandworld & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

primarily on the ground that intermediaries are exempt from liabilities under Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. However, this Court finds that in the present plaint there is an allegation that the applicant- defendant who … are not genuine, could constitute infringement. CS(COMM) 980/2016 Page 15 of 19 77. Thus, for illustration purpose, any online market place or e-commerce website, which … case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that 8. protection of Section 79(1) of the IT Act cannot be granted to Defendant No.2. In fact Section 79(1) is subject to Section 79(2) and 79(3) of

income Tax Officer and ors. Vs. Maheshwari Sewa Samiti and ors.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Nag.)832

filed in violation of the policy decision taken by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 1979, dt. 27th March, 2000, and same were liable to be dismissed as unadmitted. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue … In the case of Neeta S. Shah v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 77 (Kar), the Karnataka High Court held that when an earlier order of … 1. By this miscellaneous applications filed under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks to recall the orders of the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals.2. The facts, in

MOHAMED FAROOK Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Court : Chennai

77, 79, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 67, 67- A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, whereas in the case relied upon by the detaining authority, the accused therein was charged for the offences … J.) The father of the detenu - M.Mohamed Ihlas, who has been branded as Cyber Law Offender under Section 2(bb) passed under the provision of Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982, has challenged his detention order dated