C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1940 I.T.A.No.113 of 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.17/COCH/2015 DATED 09.05.2016 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09] -------------------- APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI - I, KOCHI, INCOME TAX OFFICES, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

natural justice. The Rajsthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sanjay Chhabra (D.B. ITA No.22/2021) noted that prejudice is caused to assessee when material used against him is not provided and opportunity of cross-examination is not provided. The assessee is based in Rajasthan and the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the judgment passed by the Rajasthan

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

natural justice. The Rajsthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sanjay Chhabra (D.B. ITA No.22/2021) noted that prejudice is caused to assessee when material used against him is not provided and opportunity of cross-examination is not provided. The assessee is based in Rajasthan and the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the judgment passed by the Rajasthan

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

natural justice. The Rajsthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sanjay Chhabra (D.B. ITA No.22/2021) noted that prejudice is caused to assessee when material used against him is not provided and opportunity of cross-examination is not provided. The assessee is based in Rajasthan and the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the judgment passed by the Rajasthan

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

justice, do not extend to private employment contracts. 42. This Court in L.M. Khosla v. Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. 23 , relying on the decisions in S.S. Shetty, Vaish Degree College, and Binny, summarised the applicable legal principles holding inter alia that- (i) employment contracts of a private nature do not attract public law remedies; (ii) where a contract

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

natural justice. It is submitted that the defendants 1(b) and 1(c) were the applicants in GA No. 1735 of 2019 and GA No. 1845 of 2019 and they made their submissions at the first instance and thereafter the (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 94 of 300 plaintiffs being

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

natural justice. It is submitted that the defendants 1(b) and 1(c) were the applicants in GA No. 1735 of 2019 and GA No. 1845 of 2019 and they made their submissions at the first instance and thereafter the (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 94 of 300 plaintiffs being

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