PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, purchased and acquired by Smt Alka Rajvansh W/o Shri Homi Rajvansh, in the name of her company M/s Mahanivesh Oil and Foods Pvt Ltd, against the consideration value of ₹ 1,35,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and Corpn. tax of ₹ 10,80,000/- is the Proceeds of Crime, which is likely to be concealed

COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS vs. THE INDIAN NEWS PAPERS SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

120B IPC was framed against A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 (leaving out A-2). In other words, the charge was that they entered House No.618/3, Paschimpuri occupied by Smt. Omi Devi with their revolvers, dagger and knife pursuant to the criminal conspiracy thus committing house trespass. 8. A separate charge was framed against

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2, vs. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.

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

properties, and waging war against India. 3. Accordingly, the NIA launched an investigation into the registered case bearing no. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI under Sections 120B, 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UA(P) Act]. 4. The Prosecution alleged

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

120B IPC: a) The prosecution has to lead prima facie evidence to show that there is a reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy. b) The onus lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused was connected with the acts or omissions

DAIKIN AIRCONDITIONING INDIA PVT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

120B IPC: a) The prosecution has to lead prima facie evidence to show that there is a reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy. b) The onus lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused was connected with the acts or omissions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. AMIT MALHOTRA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

120B IPC: a) The prosecution has to lead prima facie evidence to show that there is a reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy. b) The onus lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused was connected with the acts or omissions

PR. CIT CENTRAL-1 vs. AMRAPALI GRAND

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

120B IPC: a) The prosecution has to lead prima facie evidence to show that there is a reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy. b) The onus lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused was connected with the acts or omissions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

120B IPC: a) The prosecution has to lead prima facie evidence to show that there is a reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy. b) The onus lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused was connected with the acts or omissions

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II vs. SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

120B IPC: a) The prosecution has to lead prima facie evidence to show that there is a reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy. b) The onus lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused was connected with the acts or omissions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL)-I vs. SIDDHARATH SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

120B IPC: a) The prosecution has to lead prima facie evidence to show that there is a reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy. b) The onus lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused was connected with the acts or omissions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JUBLIANT OIL & GAS PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

120B IPC: a) The prosecution has to lead prima facie evidence to show that there is a reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy. b) The onus lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused was connected with the acts or omissions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S EAST DELHI LEASING PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

120B of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2.6 Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant and other accused persons preferred appeals before the High Court through CRA No. 223 of 2012 and CRA No. 38 of 2012 respectively. The High Court by the common impugned judgement, although allowed the appeal filed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S EAST DELHI LEASING PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

120B of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2.6 Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant and other accused persons preferred appeals before the High Court through CRA No. 223 of 2012 and CRA No. 38 of 2012 respectively. The High Court by the common impugned judgement, although allowed the appeal filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. M/S ORIENT CRAFTS LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and both the defendants arrested; (ix) on 29th September, 2014, both defendants entered into a written contract / Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) dated 29th September, 2014 with the plaintiff as under:- CS(OS) No.556/2016 Page 4 of 26 . “MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT This memorandum of settlement is made on this the 29th