The bench comprising of Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya dismissed review petitions against the verdict of the Court in December 2013 which declared gay sex a criminal offence punishable up to life imprisonment.
The bench comprising of Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla set aside the order passed by Bombay High Court restraining World Sport Group from proceeding with arbitration against MSM Satellite over dispute of facilitatio
The Bombay High Court restrained Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Limited not to use words like 'Marine' in its products, which infringes on Pidilite Industries Limited brand 'Fevicol Marine'
The three member bench presided by judge C.K. Chaturvedi awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, together as a consolidated damages for deficiencies etc., and award Rs.10,000/- for litigation expens
Important point from the judgment by Bench comprising Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh: 1. Delay in the decision of mercy plea is relevant ground for commuting death sentence to life imprisonment. 2. D
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea of unaided private schools, seeking a stay on Delhi government's nursery admission guidelines including scrapping of 20% Management Quota. Important highlights from the judgment by bench comprising Chief Jus
Important highlights from the judgment by Justice Manmohan Singh: ''It is thus a question of fact which has to be examined on case to case basis as to what constitutes the offending publication which may result in future obstruction of justice a
The Plaintiff, Institute for Inner Studies & Others, filed the suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction alongwith damages against the defendant, Charlotte Anderson & Others in order to restrain the defendants from carrying out activities of sp
The Plaintiff, Oriental Cuisines Private Limited, filed the suit alleging passing off and infringement of its trademark and copyright in the mark “THE NOODLE HOUSE” by the defendant, Star Restaurants Private Limited, seeking a decree of permanent
Rights of an auction-purchaser in the property purchased by him cannot be extinguished. Exceptions: In cases where the said purchase can be assailed on the following grounds: 1. Collusion 2. Fraud
This is a set of two revenue’s appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 on the quantum assessment and the corresponding cross-objections by the assessee. Revenue has also filed appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2005-06.
The assessee is a Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of white crystal sugar. It filed its return of income on 25.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.1,01,251/-. The Ld.AO complete the assessment u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2008 determin
In brief the facts are that in this case return of income was filed by the assessee declaring a loss of Rs. 19,906/-. The assessment was completed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act at an income of Rs. 12,42,412/- by making following disallowance
This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-III, New Delhi dated 1.11.2012 in Appeal No. 619/11-12/C.I.T.(A)-III for AY 2005-06
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi dated 24.6.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09
A brief analysis of the study depicts that though the assessee was proceeded ex-parte, the learned CIT(A) has not decided the matter on merits.
The assessee is in appeal against the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the matter of an assessment made by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (“the Act”) for the A.Y. 2004-05.
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi dated 24.6.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.
This is assessee’s appeal against CIT(A)’s order dated 2-07- 2012 relating to A.Y. 2008-09. Various grounds are raised, which in effect raise following issues: (i) disallowance of expenditure; and (ii) disallowance of business expenditure.
It is very unfortunate litigation between the husband/petitioner and wife/respondent who are Advocates of the Supreme Court and of this Court. They got married on 25th January, 1996. However, in the year 2004, the husband, who is the petitioner herei