Di - Judgment Search Results

Roshan Di Hatti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1977SC1605; [1977]107ITR938(SC); (1977)2SCC378; [1977]3SCR153

P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court answering in favour of the Revenue a question which was

Roshan Di Hatti Vs. Commissionr of Income-tax, New Delhi.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [1968]68ITR177(SC)

jewellery at Lahore. The assessee started a jewellery shop at Delhi in the name and style of 'Roshan Di Hatti'. On March 31, 1948, a credit entry of Rs. 3,33,414 was made in the books of account

Jai Mata Di Enterprises Represented by Radha Kant Singh Vs. Bank of In ...

Court: Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 9 of 2017 Jai Mata Di Enterprise having its office at Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro represented by Radha Kant Singh ….... Applicant Vrs.1. Bank

C.John DI Silva vs the District Collector

Court: Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE C.John Di Silva ..Petitioner(s) Vs1. The District Collector Chennai district, Chennai 01.2. Revenue Divisional Officer Chennai Central Chennai 1013. The

Mashaian Di Hatti Ltd. Vs. Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

NEW DELHI CS (OS) 810 of 2012 Reserved on: August 6, 2013 Decision on: August 30, 2013 MASHAIAN DI HATTI LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Suraj Chaudhary, Advocates. versus HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT.

Mahashian Di Hatti (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT589TriDel

logic would apply for its inclusion under this Chapter. On this observation, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

Ma Ween Di Vs. Ma Kin

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR41

is habit and repute of the particular status which, in the country in question, is lawful marriage.3. The differences between English and Oriental customs about the relations of the sexes make such caution especially necessary. Among most

Di Giovanni Vs. Camden Fire Insurance Assn.

Court: US Supreme Court

Di Giovanni v. Camden Fire Insurance Assn. - 296 U.S. 64 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Di Giovanni v. Camden

Di Santo Vs. Pennsylvania

Court: US Supreme Court

Di Santo v. Pennsylvania - 273 U.S. 34 (1927) U.S. Supreme Court Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34

Sushil Kumar and anr Vs. Special Dis. Judge - 1 and ors

Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur

[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Sushil Kumar & Anr. versus Special District Judge-I, (Pong Dam Oustees Cases).Sr.Ganganagar & OtheRs.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.383/2014 Under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution