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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

income from short term capital gain Rs. 97,02,942/- and long term capital loss Rs. 350,31,73,044/- was claimed as exempt. 7. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed advances written off under the head “other expenses” in the P & L and loss from business

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity “IT Act”]? 3. On facts, it has to be noticed that the Assessing Officer [for brevity “AO”] initiated the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act on the basis of the return filed by the assessee showing the amount received on sale of certain properties and claiming exemption from capital gains alleging

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 [2026:RJ-JP:12292-DB] (3 of 6) [ITA-44/2025] of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nr Portfolio P. Ltd, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6466, decided on 22.11.2013, more particularly para Nos.19, 23 and 31, which read

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 [2026:RJ-JP:12292-DB] (3 of 6) [ITA-44/2025] of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nr Portfolio P. Ltd, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6466, decided on 22.11.2013, more particularly para Nos.19, 23 and 31, which read

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 [2026:RJ-JP:12292-DB] (3 of 6) [ITA-44/2025] of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nr Portfolio P. Ltd, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6466, decided on 22.11.2013, more particularly para Nos.19, 23 and 31, which read

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

business of the companies mentioned in annexure B with the petition. It was stated that all (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 100 of 300 the companies are managed by their respective Board of Directors and the question of either PDB or RSL or HVL controlling or attempting to take over

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

business of the companies mentioned in annexure B with the petition. It was stated that all (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 100 of 300 the companies are managed by their respective Board of Directors and the question of either PDB or RSL or HVL controlling or attempting to take over

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Income Tax Officer, Salary Circle[39]) and not prior thereto.Any expenditure which the Government incurs, in implementing its policies, should be authorized by the Appropriation Act which is a law as contemplated by Article 282 (Bhim Singh[31]; S. Subramaniam Balaji[36] and Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur[38]) which stipulates that the Union or the States may make

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