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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

2(13) of the 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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 was primarily due to this. 8. Assessment Order under Section

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2. These appeals assail the order passed by the ITAT, whereby the ITAT has held that the AO has relied on the statement of third persons recorded behind the back of the assessee and without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2. These appeals assail the order passed by the ITAT, whereby the ITAT has held that the AO has relied on the statement of third persons recorded behind the back of the assessee and without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2. These appeals assail the order passed by the ITAT, whereby the ITAT has held that the AO has relied on the statement of third persons recorded behind the back of the assessee and without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed

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