India Steel - Judgment Search Results

South India Steel Rolling Mills, Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: (1997)139CTR(SC)353; [1997]224ITR654(SC); JT1997(3)SC707; (1997)9SCC728; [1997]2SCR488

the business undertaking, other than -(i) for distribution by way of dividends or profits; or(ii) for remittance outside India as profits or for the creation of any asset outside India:Provided that this clause shall not apply where … justified.2. The assesses was a partnership firm having been constituted on September 1, 1960. It was running a steel rolling mill. Initially, there were four partners, namely, M/s. S.L. Nahata, M.S. Bedi, Biharilal and M.K. Raheja, in

New India Steel Industries Vs. V.D. Steel Industries and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1980SC1706; (1981)2SCC16

Matched in: Parties New India Steel Industries Vs. V.D. Steel Industries and anr.

M/s.India Steel Structure Company Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Court: Chennai

JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.03.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN W.P.No.8870 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.9557 & 9559 of 2026M/s. India Steel Structure Company, Rep. by its Prop. Ramesh, No.24, 25, Vijayalakshmi Nagar, Near Surapet Toll Plaza, Kallikuppam, Chennai -

South India Steel Industries Ltd vs Additional /Joint /Deputy/Assistan ...

Court: Karnataka

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 13157 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:1. SOUTH INDIA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTDHAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.54/28, K S GARDEN LALBAGH ROAD, 4TH CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED

British India Steels Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prof. Suresh Chandra Kuchhal an ...

Court: Kolkata

1. The company British India Steels Limited was wound up by an order of this Court on 16th July, 1997, on the recommendation … 1. The company British India Steels Limited was wound up by an order of this Court on 16th July, 1997, on the recommendation of

Ran India Steels Vs. Regional Director of Employee State Insurance Cor ...

Court: Chennai

AT MADRAS DATED:16. 09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.Nos.659 to 662 of 2013 M/s. Ran India Steels, Rep. By its Executive Director, R.Nagarajan, No.5, C.H.B. Colony West Velur Road, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. ... … MADRAS DATED:16. 09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.Nos.659 to 662 of 2013 M/s. Ran India Steels, Rep. By its Executive Director, R.Nagarajan, No.5, C.H.B. Colony West Velur Road, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. ... Appellant

Firth (India) Steel Co. Ltd. (In Liqn.).

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR907

Matched in: Parties Firth (India) Steel Co. Ltd. (In Liqn.).

Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: 1994(46)ECC56; 1995LC49(P& H); 1995(75)ELT735(P& H)

behalf of the appellant was controverted by Mr. S.K. Pipat, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India. He contended that in view of the provisions of the Rules, credit could be claimed only after it … No. 749 of 1990 may be briefly noticed.2. The appellants as well as the petitioners are manufacturers of steel ingots, steel billets, steel bars, rounds and rods and steel flats etc. It is averred that these products

India Steel House Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 47(1992)DLT648; 1992(23)DRJ223; 1993(41)ECC112; 2003(162)ELT37(Del)

Court and the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1254-55 of 1989- M/s A. Parmananddas v. Union of India, decided on 4th January, 1989, upheld the decision of this Court by a short order which is reproduced … the Heading 73.15(2) of the Central Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would apply to the prime quality of stainless steel only or does it apply to both prime and defective and secondary stainless steel circles also. (2) A

Upper India Steel Manufacturing Engg. Corpn. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(75)ECC761; 2003(160)ELT123(Del)

been appearing on behalf of the respondent. Default notice was issued to the Standing Counsel for Union of India. Service is complete still nobody is present on behalf of the respondent/Union of India. The case of the … appellant's case has been that the tariff classification for purpose of levy of duty upon their Iron and Steel products having thickness not less than 3/16 inch and not greater than 1, 1/2 inch and width less