Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain

15 SCC 801Reported decision2017#19301 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Judgments citing Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain

SHRI OM SAI INFRAPROMOTERS PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 03, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/163/2025HC Delhi22 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 19Section 24

…wife.” 12. The law is also equally settled that a claim for maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA is not defeated merely because the applicant is educated or theoretically capable of earning. The Supreme Court in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801, observed as follows: “16. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of mai…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.

ITA/133/2022HC Delhi02 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 13Section 24Section 28

…24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court is only required to ensure that pendente lite financial support is provided to the applicant, without going into the merits of the case. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801 has held as under:- “12. The Court exercises a wide discretion in the matter of granting alimony pendente lite but the discretion is judicial and neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is to be guided on sound principles of matrimonial law and to be exercised within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and having regard to the object of the…

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/23/2018HC Telangana04 Jun 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: Mr.Ashish Gautam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate

Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(C)Section 19(1)

…ur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] 2026:JHHC:1680-DB 33 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his suppo…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION LTD.

ITA/830/2019HC Delhi13 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 24

…ing wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his supp…