COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

house property; (D) Profits and gains of business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. (15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under

PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT LTD vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)

The appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice M.G.S.Kamal

house. Thus, the plaintiff had invested huge amount for the purpose of purchase, development and maintenance of the suit property. e. That the defendant had no income of any nature to purchase and develop the property. The plaintiff had provided money for the maintenance of the defendant and she was staying in Bangalore and plaintiff was working in the Middle

M/S SARAF SEASONING UDYOG vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

housing loan, the present deal stands null and void and cancelled, and the First party shall be bound to return the bayana amount to the Second party without any interest, penalty etc. and if the First party shall be bound to return the bayana amount to the Second party without any interest, penalty etc. and if the First party fails

M/S S B L PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 72 JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

income, sales tax, excise duties, customs duties and local taxes and any impost of like nature, whether Central, State or local, charged, levied or imposed on the goods, materials, equipment and services incorporated in and forming part of the Central Bus Terminal Complex, on the construction, operation and maintenance thereof and on the project assets, excluding interest and penalties. Clause

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. SONAL JAIN

Appeal is hereby allowed and the suit is

Bench: The Lsj] Under Order Vii Rule 11 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Hereinafter Referred To As „Cpc‟] Was Allowed & The Plaint Filed By The Appellant [Plaintiff Before Lsj] Was Rejected. 2. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Parties Before This Court Shall Be Referred To In Accordance With Their Status Before The Lsj. Signed By:Jai Narayan Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 Signature Not Verified

House Property and 6 shops in Anandpur Sahib The aforesaid properties are collectively referred to as the "suit properties".” 6. While filing the suit, the Plaintiff has, in brief, asserted as under: 6.1 The suit is with respect to the properties of Plaintiff‟s paternal lineage. Defendant No.1 is the Plaintiff‟s brother, and Defendant No.2 is her father

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

additional share to the petitioner for his day to day needs and expenses. Thus, respondent is entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.66,000/- per month towards pendente lite maintenance from the petitioner. 19 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application filed by the respondent is allowed. The petitioner is directed

PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI KUSHAL KUMAR LUNAWAT

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

additional share to the petitioner for his day to day needs and expenses. Thus, respondent is entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.66,000/- per month towards pendente lite maintenance from the petitioner. 19 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application filed by the respondent is allowed. The petitioner is directed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. KAJAL CHHABRAB

In the result, the revision stands dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

property and his old and ailing mother being dependent on him with his two RPFAM No.18 of 2021 Page 4 of 23 younger brothers is not able to pay the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- each to the OP Nos. 1 & 2. It is also contended in the objection by the revision-petitioner that he has a small residential house over land

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENRAL vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA

In the result, the impugned orders of the

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. H.J. SIWANI FATHER NAME: JUSAB KASAM SIWANI. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, 6TH FLOOR, VTK-1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. HEMAKUMAR, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS STA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

SHRI LALLU RAM YADAV S/O GANESH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

income tax returns. It is also argued that once the impugned order was passed on 02.11.2019, the revisionist, on 16.01.2020, gifted his properties to his sister and, thereafter, on 17.01.2020, he filed his affidavits in this Court. 5. At it, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that these factors may not be taken into 3 consideration in this revision

SHRI VIJAY MAKHIJA S/O SHRI GOVIND RAM MAKHIJA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF TAX-I

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

properties rendering the order perverse?” 2. The aforesaid questions of law have arisen for consideration on the following factual background: - 3. The Raipur Development Authority, the respondent herein / assessee, is a statutory authority constituted by the State of Chhattisgarh in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 38(1) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SILVER AND ARTS PALACE

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

additional evidence cannot and ought not to be received in such a way so as to cause any prejudice to the accused. It is not a disguise for a re-trial or to change the nature of the case against the accused. This Court in the case of Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and another

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

additional evidence cannot and ought not to be received in such a way so as to cause any prejudice to the accused. It is not a disguise for a re-trial or to change the nature of the case against the accused. This Court in the case of Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and another

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HADOTI PUNJ VIKAS LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

additional evidence cannot and ought not to be received in such a way so as to cause any prejudice to the accused. It is not a disguise for a re-trial or to change the nature of the case against the accused. This Court in the case of Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and another

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

additional evidence cannot and ought not to be received in such a way so as to cause any prejudice to the accused. It is not a disguise for a re-trial or to change the nature of the case against the accused. This Court in the case of Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and another

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person. Article 25: Data protection by design and by default: 1. Taking into account the state of the art, the cost of implementation and the nature, scope

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

house allotment; a new provision has been retrospectively introduced to overrule/overturn the judgment of this Court which is in violation of the principle of separation of powers - a part of the basic structure; it is an impossibility in law to remove the basis of the judgment as the financial liabilities, relating to the financial years

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

properties as alleged. It is submitted that similar submissions were made by HVL before the Joint APLs which is evidenced by the Minutes of the meeting dated 21st July, 2017, similar stand was taken in his affidavit-in-opposition to the administrator's proceedings filed by the respondents in 2008 which culminated in judgment of the Division Bench dated 23rd