Register free! 
SC Cases - Judgement
[ 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 ]  

 
First | Prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | Next | Last
Documents Found: 4365   
Title Forum  Year
State of Rajasthan vs Nav Bharat Construction Company [LexDoc Id : 284116]
SC 2005
N. Venkataswamy Naidu vs Suryateja Constructions (P) Ltd. [LexDoc Id : 284051]
Chennai HC 2005
Ruma Chakraborty vs Sudha Rani Banerjee and Anr. [LexDoc Id : 282082]
SC 2005
State of M.P. vs Parasram [LexDoc Id : 282081]
SC 2005
State of M.P. vs Mulli [LexDoc Id : 282080]
SC 2005
State of M.P.vs Govind [LexDoc Id : 282079]
SC 2005
State of M.P. vs Gauri Shankar [LexDoc Id : 282078]
SC 2005
State Bank of India vs K. C. Tharakan and Ors. [LexDoc Id : 282077]
SC 2005
Bureau Veritas India Division vs DCIT Business expenditure-Amounts spent on third person-The assessee had spent certain amounts on a third person that had no connection with the asseessee’s business. The amount spent could not be allowed a [LexDoc Id : 324990]
SC 2005
Prem Kumar Garg vs JCIT Estimate of income: Defects in accounts-Application of gross profit rate-AY 2001-02. The assessee was a contactor. He showed profit rate of 3.86 percent as against eight percent shown last year. There were defects in books [LexDoc Id : 324982]
ITAT (Jodhpur) 2005
Pfizer Products, Inc. vs B.L. and Co. and Ors. [LexDoc Id : 317493]
HC (Delhi) 2005
M. Natarajan vs Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme-Immunity from criminal proceedings-Immunity could be claimed from criminal proceedings if the declaration under the ‘Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme’ was made before the charge sheet had been [LexDoc Id : 295571]
HC (Chennai) 2005
Protos Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs DCIT Investment Deposit Account-Profits of eligible business-The assessee’s income through rent, interest and dividends during the course of its business was a part of the eligible profits, which was entitled to [LexDoc Id : 294032]
HC (Bombay) 2005
Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs JCIT Deductions: Computation of income-Brought forward losses-AY 1997-98. The brought forward unabsorbed business losses were required to be set off against the business profits for computing deduction under s.80 [LexDoc Id : 288355]
ITAT Chandigarh 2005
Sameer Barar and Ors. vs Ratan Bhushan Jain and Ors. [LexDoc Id : 288181]
SC 2005
M.S.D.C. Radharamanan vs M.S.D. Chandrasekara Raja and Anr. [LexDoc Id : 287747]
SC 2005
Noise Pollution (VI), In re [LexDoc Id : 285601]
SC 2005
Shankuntla Devi vs UOI and Anr. [LexDoc Id : 284872]
SC 2005
U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. vs P.C. Chaturvedi and Ors. [LexDoc Id : 284608]
SC 2005
G. Srinivas Goud vs State of A.P. [LexDoc Id : 283650]
SC 2005
State of M.P. vs Bala @ Balaram [LexDoc Id : 282043]
SC 2005
Gaya Prasad Kar vs Subrata Kumar Banerjee [LexDoc Id : 282040]
SC 2005
CCE vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Ors. [LexDoc Id : 282039]
SC 2005
Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. vs R. Hanumaiah and Ors. [LexDoc Id : 282037]
SC 2005
Air India Employees Self Contributory vs Kuriakose V. Cherian [LexDoc Id : 282036]
SC 2005
 
First | Prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | Next | Last