| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 6045 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
CIT vs Subhash Vinayak Supnekar
[LexDoc Id : 535868]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2016 |
Inter Craft Ltd. and Ors. vs CIT and Ors.
Demand-Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Provisions of scheme.-Petitioner challenged demand made by respondent demanding certain sum through notice under provisions of Scheme, 1998. Whether, respondent was justif [LexDoc Id : 507244]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2016 |
Greaves Cotton Ltd. vs United Machinery and Appliances
Rejection of application-Section 5 read with Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Dispute referred to arbitral tribunal.-High Court of Judicature rejected the application moved under Section 5 read with Section 8 of Act to get the dispute referred to arbitral tribunal. W [LexDoc Id : 506356]
|
SC |
2016 |
Mears Group Inc. vs Fernas Insaat A.S.
Appointment of arbitrator-Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration agreement.-Petitioner sought concurrence of respondent to appointment of one of them as sole arbitrator, in terms of arbitration agreement. Whether, request of p [LexDoc Id : 506355]
|
SC |
2016 |
Nandesari Industries Association vs DCIT
Validity of Notice-Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reopening notice.-AO issued impugned Notice under Section 148 of Act to reopen assessment in exercise of power under Section 147of Act. Whether, impugned notice under S [LexDoc Id : 507302]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2016 |
Shree Hari Inn (P) Ltd. vs Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 506618]
|
MISC |
2016 |
Andrew Telecommunications India (P) Ltd. vs CIT and Ors.
Stay on demand-Grant of-AO granting stay to petitioner. Whether, AO was justified in granted stay to petitioner, which includes a right to adjust the refund, if any, to the e [LexDoc Id : 506602]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2016 |
K.L.B. Securities (P) Ltd. vs ACIT
Validity of Notice-Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Reopening of assessment.-Notice under Section 148 of Act was issued for reopening of assessment. Whether, notice issued under Section 148 of Act was justified or not. Held, AO [LexDoc Id : 507245]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2016 |
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs DDIT
Validity of Notice-Section 12A and Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Reopening of assessment.-Petitioner sought to quash and set aside impugned notice by which AO in exercise of powers under Section 147 of Act has sought to reopen assessment. W [LexDoc Id : 507237]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2016 |
T. Shoba Rani vs ITO
[LexDoc Id : 506734]
|
ITAT (Hyderabad) |
2016 |
Cellcon vs ITO
[LexDoc Id : 506727]
|
ITAT (Calcutta) |
2016 |
A.C. Construction vs ITO
[LexDoc Id : 506725]
|
ITAT (Calcutta) |
2016 |
Krishna District Co-op Central Bank Ltd. and Anr. vs K. Hanumantha Rao and Anr.
Alteration of penalty: Nature and quantum of penalty the prerogative of disciplinary authority-Penalty imposed not shockingly disproportionate, Impugned judgment set aside-
Whether it was permissible for the high court to alter the penalty of dismissal to that of stoppage of two increments for a period of three year [LexDoc Id : 506358]
|
SC |
2016 |
Ess Cee Securities (P) Ltd. and Signature Securities (P) Ltd. vs CCI, DLF Universal Ltd. and DLF Home Developers Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 506283]
|
CAT (Delhi) |
2016 |
Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. vs DCIT and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 530222]
|
SC |
2016 |
Cosmopolitan Trading Corpn. vs ITO
Trading addition-Business income-Whether, ITAT was right in law in sustaining trading addition of Rs. 1,41,000/- when trading results are much better in comparison to past, and in com [LexDoc Id : 507241]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2016 |
Price Water House and Ors. vs CITax and Ors.
International transactions-Finding of fact-Whether or not PWH and Services BV are involved in any international transactions within meaning of Sec. 92B of Act. Held, Writ Court is not fact find [LexDoc Id : 506899]
|
HC (Calcutta) |
2016 |
CIT and Ors. vs Monga Metals (P) Ltd.
Scheme of amalgamation-Sanction-Petitioner sought sanction of scheme of amalgamation of transferor and Transferee Company. Whether, in facts and circumstances of case Scheme of Amalg [LexDoc Id : 507301]
|
HC (Allahabad) |
2016 |
Liberty Marine Syndicate (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Income disclosed-Section 143(2) and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Entire assets.-Whether, income disclosed by way of income tax return for particular year is in consonance with income being possessed by assessee. If authorities hav [LexDoc Id : 507248]
|
HC (Orissa) |
2016 |
RNS Infrastructure Ltd. vs Income Tax Settlement Commissioner Addl. Bench and Ors.
Jurisdiction-Section 245D(4A)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.Barred by Limitation.-Petitioner challenged order passed by respondent No. 1 as without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Whether, order passed by respondent No. 1 wit [LexDoc Id : 506902]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2016 |
Vinay Bhasin (Huf) vs ITO
[LexDoc Id : 506848]
|
ITAT (Mumbai) |
2016 |
Paramount Builders and Greenwood Estates vs ITO
[LexDoc Id : 506845]
|
ITAT (Hyderabad) |
2016 |
Kirit Mohanbhai Pate vs ITO
[LexDoc Id : 506844]
|
ITAT (Ahmedabad) |
2016 |
Shree Dattakrupa Builders and Developers vs ITO
[LexDoc Id : 506733]
|
ITAT (Pune) |
2016 |
Robust Hotels (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs Eih Ltd. and Ors.
Eih Ltd. and Ors. vs Balaji Hotels and Enterprises Ltd. and Ors.
Interim injunction-Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. Refusal to grant.-Single Judge and Division Bench refused to grant interim injunction. Whether, suits filed by EIH were barred by Section 34 or not. Held, Division Benc [LexDoc Id : 506404]
|
SC |
2016 |
| |
| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| |
