12 3 - Judgment Search Results

Date of Decision:12.3.2014 Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Court: Punjab and Haryana

CWP No.4581 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4581 of 2014 Date of decision:12.3.2014 Ranjit Singh and others ….Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE...

Date of Decision:-12.3.2014 Vs. Smt. Harnam Devi and ors.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

from the record, is that, initially, petitioner-plaintiff No.1 Shakti Chand son of Parduman Singh, proforma respondents-plaintiffs No.2 & 3 Avinash Rana and Hari Om Rana ss/o Janak Bahadur Singh (for brevity “the plaintiffs”.), have instituted the civil … the pointed application of plaintiff, by means of impugned order dated 19.2.2014 (Annexure P3). Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.19 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1863 of 2014 2 4.

Sashank Investment and Construction Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Income-tax ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1999]239ITR603(Cal)

Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. The writ petitioners hereinafter called Sashank are developers.2. By different agreements they entered into contracts with the owners of the land in question, the Boses.3. These were agreements for sale and development...

Underwater Services Co. Vs. Asst. Cit-12 (3)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 30.07.2012, dismissing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for

Vijay Construction Co. Vs. Dy. Cit, Range 12(3)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)3SOT840(Mum.)

etc., and such other business as may be mutually agreed upon by partners in terms of agreement dated 12-11-1981. The assessee-firm agreed to purchase a piece of land together with structures standing thereon admeasuring 15,000 sq. mts.lying … assessee and revenue respectively for assessment year 1998-99 and are directed against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai dated 31-10-2001.We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.The relevant facts, in short,