PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.UTKAL ALUMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

House Building Society, whereas the Plaintiff has in his name only one property i.e. the Suit property, thereby rendering the plea of family settlement improbable. 18.9 Moreover, even prior to the setting up of M/s Tara Rubber Industries vide Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1964 [Ex. DW-1/1], the Plaintiff was having his sole proprietorship and even after that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. GAUYA SANTARE

In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 13.11.2025 Pronounced On : 12.02.2026 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Vadamalai A.S(Md)No.2 Of 2018 K.V.R.Kannan, S/O.K.V.Raju Thevar, 1, Raj Bhavan, K.V.R.Garden, Via Samayalkudi Mariamman Koil, Theni Main Road, Madurai – 625 016. ...Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. G.Ramachandran (Died) Saradha, W/O.Muthuraman, Back Side To K.V.R.Garden, Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016. ...Respondent/Defendant

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5.The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both parties. (1)Whether the plaintiff could not mobilize funds and not taking any steps to purchase the property as per the agreement, dated 09.03.2006? (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled

RAKESH MODI vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

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

3. On the point of income, it is the case of the petitioner that her husband was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 70,000/- from his employment in a public sector undertaking, he has income from house rent and other properties. According to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.22 of 2019 dt.22-12-2023 3/18 the petitioner, her husband

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

3 total value including stamp duty and registration Rs. 70,575/- were purchased by Dr. Pradeep Kumar in his own name and in the name of Nand Lal HUF (Karta Rajendra Kumar), in the name of his brother Rajendra Kumar and Shyamal Chakraborty (present appellant) from the proceeds of crime which source of acquisition is not substantiated by them

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,BHUBANESWAR vs. BOUDH CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,BOUDH

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Rev.Pet Family Court No. 104 Of 2018 C/W Rev.Pet Family Court No. 134 Of 2017 Rev.Pet Family Court No. 131 Of 2019

section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance and that is dismissed. For the above stated reasons, the reasons assigned by the Family Court dismissing the petition are set aside. Thus the petitioner being wife of the respondent and is a destitute wife is entitled for maintenance and quantified as follows. - 43 - NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such