Skip to content
How to use Narrow results with filters
  1. Run a keyword search first to load the results page.
  2. Select Supreme Court, a High Court, or tribunal on the left.
  3. Optionally filter by decision year to focus on recent or historical cases.

10 1 - Judgment Search Results

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.

Aug 19 2013

“10. I Have Given Anxious Consideration to Rival Vs. Poonam Sohal an ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Aug-19-2013

the defendants/appellants. The dispute is regarding the additional demand of Rs.20,50,573/- approximately as is due on 24.01.1997 towards 10% extra costs as the allotted plot being a corner plot. Plaintiffs case is that the allotted plot is … dated 25.03.2009. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff Manjit Sigh Sohal was allotted an industrial plot measuring 11,666.39 square yards bearing no.B- 62 in Phase-5, Focal Point, Ludhiana at the rate of Rs.350/- per square yards


Jan 19 2015

Donaldson India Filters Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1)

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-19-2015

Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. on 15.02.2012 whereby the assessment order made on 02.12.2010 by Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Circle 10(1), New Delhi for the assessment year (AY) 2003-2004 assessing the income at ₹1,63,90,330/- having the effect of tax


Apr 21 2026

Hari Bhoomi Communications Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner o ...

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Apr-21-2026

Gautam Swarup, Mr. Rudra Deosthli, Mr. Ankur Das and Ms. Sakshi Pandey, Advs.versusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 1 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs and Mr. Surya


18-section briefs on any result in this list

May 18 2026

Amandeep Singh Proprietor , Guru Kripa Enterprises vs Office of the As ...

Court: Delhi

Decided on: May-18-2026

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Rohit Aggarwal, Advs.versusOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv.,CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE


Jan 10 2013

Date of Decision: 10.1.2013 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Jan-10-2013

petition is to the communication dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure P-9).whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- by 10.1.2013 whereas the remaining demand was stayed up to 31.1.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that


Jan 10 2013

Date of Decision: 10.1.2013 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Jan-10-2013

petition is to the communication dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure P-9).whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- by 10.1.2013 and the remaining demand was stayed upto 31.1.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that earlier


Sep 16 2013

i) the Occurrence in This Case Is of 10.1.2001 and He Has Already Face ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Sep-16-2013

involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 10.1.2001 at about 9.45 A.M., complainant Naresh Kumar son of Lal Chand (PW3) (for brevity “the complainant”.) had gone


Jul 20 2012

icici Home Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1 ...

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-20-2012

the entire amount of payment has been offered for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). In fact, by letters dated 10.11.2008 and 26.12.2008 in response to specific queries of the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings the petitioner had pointed … the Constitution of India challenges: a) Notice dated 24.03.2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned notice') issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking to


Oct 16 2012

Fiat India Automobiles Limited Vs. Virendra Singh, Assistant Commissio ...

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Oct-16-2012

well as the corrigendum order dated 27.03.2012 to the Court as also to the Counsel for the Petitioner. 10 The letter dated 20/3/2012 addressed by the ACIT-10(1) to CIT(10) Mumbai reads thus:- To The Commissioner of Income


Feb 21 2016

M. Sathyanarayana Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Feb-21-2016

S. Sujatha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench - A


  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »
Loading chart…

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial