Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing M/S T. C. Buildcon Pvt Ltd. Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Income Tax 29 ... on 5 February, 2019

Through Its Authorized Representative vs Sh. K. Ganesh (Prop) on 3 June, 2022

13. The plaintiff has sought pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 21% per annum from due date of each invoice till date of filing of the present suit. Since parties are in commercial relations, court is of the opinion that 9% interest p.a. T.T. Ltd. Vs. K. Ganesh (Prop.) pg. no. 7/8 will suffice interest of the justice. Accordingly, plaintiff is held entitled to recover from the defendant an amount of Rs.63,117/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from date of filing of the suit till realization of decreetal amount.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Kailash Nath on 17 May, 2024

5. On the basis of the said charge sheet, learned magistrate had taken cognizance and since the case was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, committed it to the court of sessions where it was registered vide S.T. No. 219 of 1983, State Vs Kailash Nath. The trial court framed the charges against the accused-respondent on 3.1.1984 u/s 302 read with section 34 IPC, which was read out and explained to the accused-respondent who abjured the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R Gupta - Full Document

Sh. Ravinandan Kumar, Ludhiana vs Acit, C-7, Ludhiana on 14 June, 2021

4.4 In order to explain that an expenditure may be admissible under section 57fiii), it is necessary that the primary motive of incurring it is directly to earn income falling under the head "income from other sources". Under section 57(iii), deduction will not be allowed if the expenditure is not incurred for the purpose of earning income failing under the head "income from other sources" C!T vs. Smt. Amirtaben R. Shah (1999) 152 Taxation 721 (Bom.).The plain natural construction of the language of section 57(iii) of the Act, irresistibly leads to the conclusions that to bring a case within that section it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure. What section 57{iii) requires is that the expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 9 September, 2024

In fact, in the case of the highest law officer of the State -- the Advocate General, this Court, in the case of T.C. Hingorani v. G.P. Misra [1967 All WR 662] held that the State Government could assign to the Advocate General the duty to appear in a contempt proceeding for a contemner, and the Advocate General was entitled to so appear.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushil Singh Alias Pilandi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 31 May, 2024

The present application has been filed to quash the impugned proceeding arising out of crime No.0013 of 2023 and S.T. No.93 of 2023 State vs. Sushil Singh under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) va SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Tarun, district Ayodhya, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad and summoning order dated 17.7.2023, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K S Pawar - Full Document
1   2 Next