THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S MULTIMETALS LIMITED

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Capital Gain Statement for the period 01.04.2024 to 19.12.2024 issued by KFINTECH. 3. In Clauses (x) and (xi) of the Settlement

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

capital gain entries by the assessee. He has relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI PAWAN GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

capital gain entries by the assessee. He has relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

capital gain entries by the assessee. He has relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

capital gain Rs. 97,02,942/- and long term capital loss Rs. 350,31,73,044/- was claimed as exempt

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

capital of the company. As on 31.03.2020, BCL continues to have a total of 7,70,05,347 shares. The promoters comprises at present 23 companies and societies and one individual i.e. the estate of PDB holding a total of 4,84,34,191 shares equivalent to 62.90% of the total share capital. After elaborately referring to the genesis

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

capital of the company. As on 31.03.2020, BCL continues to have a total of 7,70,05,347 shares. The promoters comprises at present 23 companies and societies and one individual i.e. the estate of PDB holding a total of 4,84,34,191 shares equivalent to 62.90% of the total share capital. After elaborately referring to the genesis

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

capital valueand, as the tax had already been imposed, levied and collected on that basis, had made the imposition, levy, collection and recovery of the tax valid, notwithstanding the declaration by the Court that, as “rate”, the levy was incompetent; the legislature had equated the tax collected to a “rate”, giving a new meaning to the expression “rate”; while doing

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. v. Tarun Bhargava25, this Court reiterated that in cases involving private employment, the scope of judicial review is limited, and the remedies are governed solely by contract law principles. It was affirmed that the rights of the employees are confined to what is stipulated in the contract, and even if termination is wrongful, Courts will