What did the High Court hold?

The document lists multiple appeals and cross-appeals between various parties, including Commissioners of Income Tax and individuals/entities. It appears to be a procedural order or a list of cases to be heard.

The provided text is a scanned image of a court order, primarily listing case titles and parties involved in various appeals before the Delhi High Court. It does not contain substantive factual details of any specific case.

What were the issues?

The document does not present any specific legal issues or arguments for analysis.

CIT vs Rajan Nanda | Delhi High Court 2011

* o/o (1) t. :{ i I IN THE HIGI{ COURT OF DELHI AT T{EW DELHI ti I Decision Delivered on: 16th Decemb rTA 1428 l;20(JA 'f AN NA:NDA I IVERSUS I i I ,INCOME TAX lli . . . Appellant . .Respondent . . . Appellant . .Respondent I (3)l I I I qo CEI NE L-II ...Appellant , , .Respondent . Appellant . . .Respondent ...Appellant i .Resporldent Pagt tof 4 l (s) I | | r, ! MrsstroNER oF INCOME TAX CE 'lrtl' I NANDA Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

(7) I i ii , MJAN NANDA tl rTA 2075 '-O10 rlI fl 'l CIT :l MrAN *:1*too rrA 5lE/?O11 coMMISIIIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS ITREHAN OF INCOME TAX CIT (s) (10) ( 11) ...Appelant (O .Respondent Appellant . . .Respondent . . . ApPellant \ . .Respondent . . Appellant .Responden . . . ApPellan : I ,I,*t - :l I I I

(L2) rTA 2073 -"O10 (13) ii MISSIPNER O VERSUS 11'."' il i VERSUS i' i =;ttttCOMf tnX I VERSUS VERSUS CIT (L4 NARESH TRIEHAN ti lnLsH rrieHnru .I ri ,I I I I i I (1s) I (16) co TS I-IEART trysrlTurE AND RCli CENTRE rrD. 4841'2ooe li i ,r ' ll I i vrtssi:orurR oF INcoME TAx 'rrll l' ll I TS,HTART INSTITUTE AND RCI-I CENTRE LTD. (17) I I ,! I : .: i I 'I \,ll . . . Appellant . . .ResPondent . . . APPellant . . .ResPondent . . . APPellant . . .ResPondent . . . APPellant . . .ResPondent . . , ApPellant . . .ResPondent . . . APPqllant I I I Pagb 3 of 4

VERSUS ITUTE I vrnsus VERSUS I ITUTE AND CHIEF JU CE M.L. MEHT IIA No.400 of 2008' .Resppndent . . . Appellant . . .Respondent Appellant . . .Respondent ra, Sr. Standing Counsel, Aggarwal, Sr. S.tanding Advocate with Mr. V'N. l2-- (1 (18) DECEM ) ... k1;. Yt ( - .,1) J Y- i CTIN,G CHIEF JUSTICE i I I "f ---t. p-TA^I - (M.t. inrnln)t- JUDGE I I ! i I I I I I Page 4 oT t+ t_-_,_"- Itr--r- I I I I I I I I I-l- I t, ti li l i 'f i rl-i-:-i ii ,ll I tri I ,lil I I I i I i I I I i Ms. Rashmi Chc jCounsel, Ms. Sur I

CIT vs. RAJAN NANDA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments