S 280 - Judgment Search Results

MCiLVAiNE Vs. COXE'S LESSEE

Court: US Supreme Court

..... declares that protection and allegiance are reciprocal page 6 u s 280 290 this doctrine of antenati is founded on calvin s ..... expatriation is an inconvenient and inflexible deprivation page 6 u s 280 303 emigration destroys no rights but facilitates the commerce and ..... their political connections within their respective states page 6 u s 280 324 a train of reasoning is unnecessary on this point .....

United Rys. and Elec. Co. Vs. West

Court: US Supreme Court

..... rule of smyth v ames this risk if it page 280 u s 280 exists cannot be escaped by basing the charge on present ..... expenses of operation setting aside the necessary sums for depreciation page 280 u s 252 payment of interest and reasonable dividends there ..... report of tentative conclusions concerning depreciation charges submitted to the page 280 u s 273 steam railroads telephone companies and carriers by .....

Hari Krishna Bhargav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1966SC619; [1966]59ITR243(SC); [1966]2SCR22

..... of constitution of india sections 3 1 44 280 280 a 280 e 280 o 280 x 280 x 1 and 280 x 2 of finance act 1964 provincial act ..... act ch xxii a relating to annuity deposit containing sections 280 a to 280 x was introduced into the income tax act by that ..... legislative competence of the parliament and c the provisions of s 280 and sch ii are discriminatory and infringe the fundamental freedom under .....

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. and ...

Court: Kolkata

..... such leave the date of presentation of the plaint in cs no 280 of 2001 is 26th april 2002 below the date of presentation signature ..... civil procedure had been obtained while filing the earlier suit cs no 280 of 2001 the plaintiff should not now be allowed to make oral ..... passed on 27th november 2001 which reads item no 11 c s 280 2001 steel authority of india ltd versus mackinnon mackenzie co ltd anr .....

Crowell Vs. Benson

Court: US Supreme Court

..... 43 262 u s 50 tagg bros moorhead v united states 280 u s 420 280 u s 443 280 u s 444 phillips v commissioner 283 u s 589 283 ..... 42 stat 159 168 see tagg bros moorhead v united states 280 u s 420 280 u s 443 280 u s 444 stafford v wallace 258 u s 495 258 ..... by that tribunal as stated in tagg bros moorhead v united states 280 u s 420 280 u s 443 concerning orders of the secretary of agriculture under the .....

Atchison, T. and S.F. Ry. Co. Vs. Railroad Comm'n

Court: US Supreme Court

..... also 190 cal 214 aff d 264 u s 264 u s 331 280 u s 280 u s 52 page 283 u s 386 mr chief justice hughes ..... upon the interstate commerce commission authority to require the building of the station 280 u s 280 u s 52 referring to its former decision the court said id ..... with respect to requirements for the building of union stations as follows 280 u s pp 280 u s 67 68 there are cases in the state courts in .....

Mcclellan Vs. California

Court: US Supreme Court

..... s supreme court reports mcclellan v california 386 u s 280 1967 mcclellan v california 386 u s 280 1967 386 u s 280 mcclellan v california on petition for writ of certiorari ..... concurring in the result in chapman v california ante at 42 page 386 u s 280 281

Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. A.V. Joshi, I ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [1979]118ITR544(Guj)

..... 64 and before making any deduction under chapter vi a or section 280 o in respect of the previous year relevant to an assessment ..... this act before making any deduction under this chapter or under s 280 o a similar provision arose for consideration before the supreme court in ..... purposes of other provisions of act barring chapter vi a and section 280 o are nil or shows loss in previous year relevant to .....

Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. India Automobiles

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)251; [1983]143ITR774(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN111(Bom)

..... deduction in respect of the annuity deposit under the provisions of s 280 o of the said act it was contended that penalty in ..... deposits but not a registered firm sub section 1 of s 280 o reads thus notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the ..... firm cannot pay any such deposit under law under proviso to section 280 o registered firm entitled to deduct annuity deposit which would have .....

Camberling Vs. Mccall

Court: US Supreme Court

..... three hundred pounds lawful money of pennsylvania and on page 2 u s 280 281 the same day caused the same to be insured prout policy ..... to entitle his client to recover was found by page 2 u s 280 282 the special verdict for when a vessel has never been heard ..... the case therefore we think that the plaintiff is page 2 u s 280 285 entitled to recover the principal sum insured and interest to commence at .....