ESCORTS KUBOTA LIMITED vs. ADDL. CIT SPECIAL RANGE 3

PDF · subscribers
ITA/325/2025HC DelhiDLHC01059237202501 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no merit in the appellant's submissions that the ITRs were filed inadvertently. The court upheld the Family Court's decision, noting the appellant's admission of filing the returns.

What were the facts?

The appellant sought maintenance pendente lite, but her application was dismissed by the Family Court. This dismissal was based on her filed Income Tax Returns showing income and inconsistent stands regarding her employment status.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellant's filed Income Tax Returns, showing income and inconsistent employment status, warrant dismissal of her maintenance application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 325/2025, CM APPL. 56167/2025 (Ex.) & CM APPL. 56168/2025 (Delay of 58 days in Re-filing the appeal) REKHA

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Girish Kumar, Mr. Aayush Gautam, Mr. Udayan Khurana & Mr. Kartikeya Kaushik, Advs. versus MANOJ

.....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R %

08.09.2025 1. The Appellant herein assails the correctness of the Impugned Order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, South West Dwarka, whereby her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking grant of maintenance pendente lite was dismissed. 2. Initially, the Court had granted ad-interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. However, it was subsequently found that, as per the Appellant’s Income Tax Returns [“ITRs”] for the Assessment Year [“AY”] 2021–2022, her income was shown as Rs. 1,48,910/-, and for AY 2022–2023, her income was shown as Rs. 85,860/-. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2025 at 12:35:22

3.

It was further observed that the Appellant had taken inconsistent stands with respect to her employment and working status. 4. The husband of the Appellant is employed with the Defence Research and Development Organisation [“DRDO”] and is drawing a salary of approximately Rs. 37,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the ITRs were filed by the Appellant inadvertently and the aforesaid income is not reflected in her bank account. 6. This Court has considered the submissions advanced and finds no merit therein, particularly in view of the fact that the Appellant herself admits to having filed the said ITRs. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, there is no ground to interfere. Accordingly, the present Appeal along with pending applications, if any, is dismissed. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 8, 2025/ v/ds This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2025 at 12:35:22

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →