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 vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee company. 6. On 28.03.2017, the original return was revised and the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 354,34,84,148/-, which included loss from Business or Profession amounting to Rs. 5,00,14,046/-. The income from short term capital gain

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

34]). 70. While adjudication of rights is essentially a judicial function, the power to validate an invalid law or to legalise an illegal action is within the exclusive province of the Legislature. Exercise of that power by the Legislature is not, therefore, an encroachment on the judicial power of the Court. (Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa[67]). Though

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