7 I - Judgment Search Results

Delhi Furniture Company Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1 ...

Court: Delhi

$~155 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 747/2025 CM APPL. 3738/2025 DELHI FURNITURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nischay Kantoor, Ms. Vandana Kothari and Mr. Sparsh

Despecto Realtors India Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1 ...

Court: Delhi

1179/2026 & CM APPL. 5762/2026 DESPECTO REALTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Adv.versusINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1) DELHI AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court: Delhi

$~4. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO.2892/2013 Date of decision:8. h November, 2013 SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.C. Dastur, Sr. Advocate with Mr....

M/s. IVRCL-KBL (JV) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7 ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

be consistent with the provisions of the Act. (State of U.P. vs. Babu Ram Upadhya (AIR 1961 SC 751). A statutory rule cannot enlarge or restrict the meaning of a Section. If a rule goes beyond, or

Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle ...

Court: Delhi

In view of this the deduction of 4,67,89,966/- has been erroneously claimed by the assessee for A Y200708.” 7. The Assessee filed its objections and contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was barred

Ashoka Marketing Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)3CALLT495(HC)

objection. The hearing of assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act on 7th April, 1979. On 9th April, 1979 the petitioner challenged the order as well as the proceeding. One of

Manne Srinivasa Rao So Anjaiah, Aged 29 Vs. Regalla Uma, Wo. Satyanara ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim-petition doubting involvement of the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 in the accident. 7. As against the evidence of PW-1, there is evidence of official of the Insurance Company, who was examined