Second Sight - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: second sight Year: 1981 Page 1 of about 4,223 results (0.106 seconds)Schad Vs. Borough of Mount Ephraim
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-01-1981
footnote 14 the borough s first justification is patently insufficient second mount ephraim contends that it may selectively exclude commercial live
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Western India Chamber o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)90; [1982]136ITR67(Bom)
to be paid or distributed amongst its members 23 the second question before us relates to the assessees right to set
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAll India Reporter Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom41; 1982TAXLR2422
sanction to a reduced increase in the salary of the second petitioner it sanctioned a salary of rs 2500 per month
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAcme Plastic Industries Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC29(Bom)
carried out before they are fitted on to transistor radios secondly these grills are manufactured by the applicants at the instance
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBatliboi and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1981
Reported in: [1981]47STC321(Bom)
if this machine was released by the defence ministry this second explanation clearly appears to be an afterthought and the tribunal
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. L. D. Bhave a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: [1981]47STC318(Bom)
new international dictionary accessory is defined as a thing of secondary or subordinate importance as in achieving a purpose or an
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Vansal and Va ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC419(Bom)
9 in the present case the respondents have violated the second prohibition as explained in the above decision in the case
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTHind Rectifiers Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: [1981]47STC303(Bom)
sujata v manohar j 1 the applicants are registered dealers under the bombay sales tax act 1959 they manufacture and...
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.C. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)401; [1982]137ITR287(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN66(Bom)
sujata manohar j 1 the assessees in income tax reference no 98 of 1971 and income tax reference no 194...
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPrataprai Arjandas Dhameja and anr. Vs. Bhupatsing Gagji (by Lrs.) and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj72; (1982)1GLR437
..... court in supriya ghosh s case air 1973 pat 129 supra the second question which we must consider is whether these throe decisions of ..... of bradburn s case was not available the distinction was lost sight of deshpande j himself agrees that the omission of the paragraph ..... of justification that the learned judges of this high court has lost sight of the distinction 36 the next question that arises is was .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial