Rajnesh v. Neha

2 SCC 324Reported decision2021#3565 most cited

What is Rajnesh v. Neha authority for?

Questions of law in appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act must be framed at the time of admission and not after arguments conclude. Similar principles apply to Section 256 jurisdiction.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rajnesh v Neha · Section 260-A · Section 256 · questions of law · admission of appeal · formulation of questions · income tax appeal · High Court jurisdiction · arguments

Judgments citing Rajnesh v. Neha

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SIS LIVE

ITA/172/2024HC Delhi07 May 2025

Bench: The Court .............................................. 6 Analysis & Findings ...................................................................... 8 Distinction Between Interim Relief/Maintenance & Ad-Interim Relief/Maintenance ............................................................................................ 9 The Scope & Objective Of Section 125 Of Cr.P.C .................................... 10 Grant Of Ad-Interim Maintenance: Judicial Precedents .............................. 12 Law Of Grant Of Ad-Interim Maintenance: Summarised & Clarified .... 18 Whether Ad-Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted Even In The Absence Of A Specific Application Made To That Effect? ....................................................... 21 Whether Ad-Interim Maintenance Is Payable From The Date Of Filing Of The Application Or The Date Of The Order? ................................................... 26 The Decision ..................................................................................................... 28 Digitally Signed By:Zeenat Praveen Signing Date:01.07.2025 18:09:08 Signature Not Verified

Section 125

…f ad-interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application, despite clear objections raised by the petitioner during the hearing on 26.09.2024. It is argued that the learned Family Court has misapplied the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324, by equating ad-interim maintenance with interim maintenance and mechanically applying the principles stated therein. The learned counsel emphasizes that the said judgment only deals with interim maintenance to be granted upon the completion of pleadings and submission of affidavits of income, and not with ad-interim maintenance, which is a t…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-2 vs. M/S SANTUR BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

ITA/252/2024HC Delhi19 Mar 2025

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

Section 13(1)Section 19Section 24

…e was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 CrPC. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent wife was able to maintain herself. 27. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, held that an earning wife is not barred from claiming maintenance, as the court must assess whether her income is sufficient to maintain herself in accordance with the standard of living in the matrimonial home. The Court observed as follows : “90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awar…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LUXOR WRITING INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD.

ITA/167/2024HC Delhi14 Jan 2025

Bench: The Court ............................................. 6 Analysis & Findings ..................................................................... 8 Distinction Between Interim Relief/Maintenance & Ad-Interim Relief/Maintenance ............................................................................................ 9 The Scope & Objective Of Section 125 Of Cr.P.C ................................... 10 Grant Of Ad-Interim Maintenance: Judicial Precedents ............................. 12 Law Of Grant Of Ad-Interim Maintenance: Summarised & Clarified ... 18 Whether Ad-Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted Even In The Absence Of A Specific Application Made To That Effect? ................................................... 21 Whether Ad-Interim Maintenance Is Payable From The Date Of Filing Of The Application Or The Date Of The Order? .................................................. 26 Digitally Signed By:Zeenat Praveen Signing Date:01.07.2025 18:09:08 Signature Not Verified

Section 125

…f ad-interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application, despite clear objections raised by the petitioner during the hearing on 26.09.2024. It is argued that the learned Family Court has misapplied the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324, by equating ad-interim maintenance with interim maintenance and mechanically applying the principles stated therein. The learned counsel emphasizes that the said judgment only deals with interim maintenance to be granted upon the completion of pleadings and submission of affidavits of income, and not with ad-interim maintenance, which is a t…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. CASIO INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD.

Accordingly, both petitions are dismissed

ITA/211/2022HC Delhi11 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 12Section 23Section 29

…ch declaration as conclusive is to make the interim remedy illusory. The interim stage is designed to prevent destitution and to secure subsistence pending trial, when the disputed questions on income and assets will be tested through evidence. 3 (2021) 2 SCC 324. 4 See also: Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622. 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 17/12/2025 at 12:31:33 CRL.M.C. 2492/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 211/2022…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD.

ITA/34/2024HC Rajasthan24 Sept 2024

Bench: The Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Rev.Pet Family Court No. 34 Of 2024 Between:

Section 19(4)

…0/- per month and it cannot be believed that Homeopathic Doctoris earning Rs.25,000/- per month.Here there is no requirement for the Court to do any guesswork when there is evidence on record. 1(2021) 2 SCC 324 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29376 RPFC No. 34 of 2024 7. In that view of the matter and balancing the interest of both the parties, this Court is passingthe following; ORDER i. The order passed inCrl.Misc.No.369/2016 dated 30.8.2023 by IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is modified and maintenance of an a…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INIDABUILD HOMES PVT LTD

ITA/277/2023HC Karnataka29 Aug 2023

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Ravi V Hosmani R.P. F. C. No. 277 Of 2023 Between:

Section 125Section 125(1)(a)Section 19(4)Section 65

…ipts, Gold Ornament receipts, Bank statement of respondent no.2 and Salary Emoluments of petitioner as Exhibits P.6 to P9. 9. Insofar as considerations for determining quantum of maintenance, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, held as follows: "84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde [Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para 8) "1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3. The independent inc…

RAKESH MODI vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

ITA/22/2019HC Orissa31 Jan 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 125

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.22 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Jyoti Raj Daughter of Sri Umesh Prasad Sah Wife of Alok Bharti, resident of Indu Sadan, Lohsari Road, Vill-Singhray Mahua, P.S-Mahua, Distt.-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Alok Bharti, Son of Anup Lal Sah, Vill-Neemchak, P.S-Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur presently residing at Building No.9, Flat No.07, MSEB Colony, National Park, Boriwali, Mumbai-400066 ... ... Respondents ==================…

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

…MAT.APP.(F.C.) 133/2022 Page 1 of 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: August 10, 2023 Pronounced on: October 09, 2023 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 133/2022 & CM APPL. 3439/2023 SUNNY BEDI ALIAS RAJBIR BEDI ..... Appellant Through: In person with Mr. Rahul Raj Verma & Mr. Shivom Garg, Advocates Versus HARPREET SINGH ..... Respondent Through: In person with Advocate (appearance not given) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR…

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 695/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…ns of Lordship are as follows: - “10. Mr. Balbir Singh referred to the judgments of this Court N.K. Jewellers v. CIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 361/251 Taxman 7/398 ITR 116, CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corpn. [1997] 91 Taxman 192/224 ITR 614, ITO v. Seth Brothers [1969] 2 SCC 324 and Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Space wood Furnishers (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 292/232 Taxman 131/374 ITR 595 to contend that though it is open to the Court to examine the question whether "reasons to believe" have any rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and that such reasons are not…

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

…sessee argued that the High Court has rightly held that none of the pre-requisite conditions for search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act are satisfied. It was argued that it is not the case of the 5 (2018) 12 SCC 627 6 (1997) 5 SCC 321 7 (1969) 2 SCC 324 8 (2015) 12 SCC 179 10 Revenue that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act is applicable, whereas the High Court has recorded a finding that even clause (b) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act are not satisfied. Since the view of the High Court is based upon established principles of law, no case for in…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/952/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…2 of 27 facts and if there is a finding on the facts, the settled law is that High Court should be slow in interfering into the same. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in M.Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 2 SCC 324 and judgments of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. BhadaniFinaciers Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online Delhi 4430 and in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. CIT, 2000 SCC Online Del 1023. 21. In the case of M.Janardhana Rao(supra), the Apex Court has inter alia held as under: “14. Without insisting on the statement of substantial question…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/930/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…2 of 27 facts and if there is a finding on the facts, the settled law is that High Court should be slow in interfering into the same. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in M.Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 2 SCC 324 and judgments of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. BhadaniFinaciers Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online Delhi 4430 and in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. CIT, 2000 SCC Online Del 1023. 21. In the case of M.Janardhana Rao(supra), the Apex Court has inter alia held as under: “14. Without insisting on the statement of substantial question…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/936/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…2 of 27 facts and if there is a finding on the facts, the settled law is that High Court should be slow in interfering into the same. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in M.Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 2 SCC 324 and judgments of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. BhadaniFinaciers Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online Delhi 4430 and in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. CIT, 2000 SCC Online Del 1023. 21. In the case of M.Janardhana Rao(supra), the Apex Court has inter alia held as under: “14. Without insisting on the statement of substantial question…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. BELL CERAMICS LTD, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 577/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Apr 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…ted that the Appeal under Section 260A could be admitted only on the High Court being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Janardhana Rao versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2005) 2 SCC 324, while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observed as under : “14. Without insisting on the statement of substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal and formulating the same at the time of admission, the High Court is not empowered to generally decide the appeal under Section 260A without adhering to 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)

…2026:JHHC:1680-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 213 of 2019 ----- Priyanka Sahi, wife of Mr. Siddarath Rao @ Rahul, presently residing at Mohalla Pipra Kalla, Garhwa PO & PS & Dist. Garhwa, Permanent resident of village Sapha Garulha, PO and PS Ramkola, District Khusi Nagar (U.P.) .… … Appellant/ Petitioner Versus Siddarth Rao son of Dinesh Kumar Rao, presently residing at Khurd Mines, Sindeshwar, PO and PS Dariba Sub Division Rail Magara Dist. Rajasmand (Rajasthan) Permanent resident of village Sapha Garulha PO and PS Ramkola District Khusi Nagar…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

C.A. No.-001106-001106 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 254

…nto liquidation.” 19.Coming to the arguments of the learned ASG, his reliance upon passages contained in M/s M. Ramnarain (P) Ltd. v. State Trading Corpn. of India Ltd. (1983) 3 SCC 75 (paragraph 16) and M. 29 Janardhana Rao v. CIT (2005) 2 SCC 324 (paragraph 14) do not carry the matter any further. In M/s M. Ramnarain (supra) what was held in paragraph 16 was that the statutory right of appeal conferred on a party may be lost by application of the provisions of some law or by the conduct of the party. This was held in the context of the provisions of Order XX Rule 11 of the Code of…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (T.D.S.) JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHD. NIZAMUDDIN

ITA/22/2019HC Rajasthan14 Dec 2019

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Section 125

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.22 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Jyoti Raj Daughter of Sri Umesh Prasad Sah Wife of Alok Bharti, resident of Indu Sadan, Lohsari Road, Vill-Singhray Mahua, P.S-Mahua, Distt.-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Alok Bharti, Son of Anup Lal Sah, Vill-Neemchak, P.S-Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur presently residing at Building No.9, Flat No.07, MSEB Colony, National Park, Boriwali, Mumbai-400066 ... ... Respondents ==================…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. INTERNATIONAL CARS & MOTORS LTD

ITA/643/2019HC Delhi10 Dec 2019

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 125

…that maintenance was granted prospectively from 01.12.2018 and not from the date of institution of the case under Section 125 of the CrPC, which is not in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it was held as under: "110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justi…

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

…oked and thus there does appear to be some concealment of facts in relation to the assets which are available to ‘R’ for her sustenance, it can nevertheless not be overlooked that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh V. Neha & Ors.; (2021) 2 SCC 324 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903 at page 371 Crl.Appeal 730/2020 decided on 4.11.2020 qua the criteria to determine the quantum of maintenance quantum of maintenance, it has been observed to the effect: “III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.12.2021 17:37:50 This…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-EXEMPTION vs. INDIA ISLAMIC CULTURE CENTRE

ITA/792/2018HC Delhi30 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 125Section 126Section 127

…bmissions of learned counsels 3. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.2 has been directed to pay maintenance from the date of the order, however, as per mandate of law, as laid down in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha; (2021) 2 SCC 324, he should have been directed to pay maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance petition. It is also stated that the maintenance order should have been passed on the This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002219 CRL.REV.P. 792/2018…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

Rajnesh v. Neha (2 SCC 324) — Cited in 33 Judgments | BharatTax