Search Results for "Section 75(5)"

247 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 247 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Revenue in Income Tax Reassessment Case on Limitation and Computation Grounds. Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Held Valid as Assessee Failed to Disclose Material Facts, and Notice Served on Partnership Firm Was Proper Despite Section 282(2) Argument.

The dispute arose from reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, involving a partnership firm engaged in publishing newspapers and peri...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Evidence and Procedural Issues. Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Amid Pathway Dispute and Inconsistent Eyewitness Testimony.

The Supreme Court of India dealt with multiple criminal appeals arising from a common occurrence involving a pathway dispute between the prime accused...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Criminal Complaints Under Section 138 NI Act Not Covered by Company Law Moratorium. The expression 'suit or other proceedings' in Sections 442 and 446(1) of Companies Act, 1956 does not include criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The case involves a reference to resolve a conflict between two Single Judge judgments of the Bombay High Court regarding whether criminal complaints ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against CLB Order in Company Law Dispute Over Share Transfer and Oppression. Court upholds CLB's refusal to dismiss petition under Section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956, finding prima facie case of oppression and mismanagement.

The judgment arises from a company appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, by M/s. Gharda Chemicals Limited and others against an o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Eviction Decree — Court Receiver Need Not Seek Separate Leave to Sue When Appointed with Full Powers Under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC. Notice Under Section 106 T.P. Act Demanding Immediate Possession Is Not Invalid If Suit Filed After Notice Period.

The plaintiff, the Court Receiver appointed by the High Court in Suit No.234 of 1987, was the receiver of the suit property 'Dev Ashish' at Peddar Roa...