May V New - Judgment Search Results

N. V. Builders Vs. V.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1363 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:1. 3.2013 N.V.Builders .Petitioner v. Vijay N. Zade and another .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).Mr.V.Ramswaroop,

V. Vs. George V. Commissioner of Agrl. Income Tax.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Ker)142

of revision under s. 34 of the Act. Secs. 25, 26 and 14 of the Agrl. IT Act may be usefully quoted :'25. Assessment in case of discontinued business of company firm or association. - (1) Where … 27-7-1968. It was an assessee to Agricultural IT on the files of the 2nd respondent - Agrl. ITO, Vythiri. It is alleged that the firm was dissolved by a Deed of Dissolution dt. 2-6-1980 (Ext. P11). After

V. Vs. S. Natarajan V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1978]111ITR539(Mad)

not allotted any property ?'The assessee was being assessed as a Hindu undivided family. It consists of one V. V. S. Pandurangan, who is the karta, his wife, Rajeswari, and their two minor daughters, Ponmathi and Leela.

V. Vs. Rama Rao Naidu V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, and Ot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1961]42ITR80(AP)

J. - The common question which falls for determination in these writ petitions is whether the Income-tax Officer, Vizianagaram Circle, was right in treating the petitioner as the legal representative of his mother Mahalakshmamma, and in that

V. Vs. R. N. Vr. Nagappa Chettiar V. Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, an ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1958]33ITR226(Mad)

by the petitioner and assessed for the years 1939-40, 1940-41 and 1941-42.The point that is raised is a very short one, and the question is whether the certificates issued under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act in

V vs State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(CRL) 980/2026 V .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Adv. (DHCLSC) with Ms. Anchal Yadav, Adv.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

V vs State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(CRL) 1622/2026, CRL.M.A. 16231/2026 V ...Petitioner Through: Ms. Pallavi Garg (DHCLSC) and Ms. Sanjana Sharma Sahu, Advs.versusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent Through: … and necessary compliance.8. The present petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. SAURABH BANERJEE, J MAY 20, 2026/So

*** Vs. V.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.7554 of 2013 Date of decision : May 06, 2013 Gurnam Singh Lali, .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and otheRs......Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY … Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.”2. To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.”3. Whether the

*** Vs. V.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.”2. To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.”3. Whether the judgment … 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : August 30, 2013 Haryana State Co-op Supply & Marketing Federation Limited, .....Petitioner v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar & another, .....Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present … Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.”2. To be referred to

*** Vs. V.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Mr.Vineet Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for U.T., Chandigarh. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.”2. To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.”3. Whether the judgment … COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 16, 2013 Dr. Kiran Sharma .....Petitioner v. U.T.Chandigarh Administration .....Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH *** Present : Mr.Vineet Sehgal, Advocate, for the … petitioneRs.Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for U.T., Chandigarh. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.”2. To be referred to