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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 29.11.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit

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

In the result, the impugned orders of the

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI S.T.A. No.4/2020 C/W S.T.A. No.5/2020, S.T.A. No.6/2020, S.T.A. No.7/2020 IN S.T.A. No.4/2020 BETWEEN: M/S. SILICON ESTATES, NO.14, H.M. GENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. H.J. SIWANI. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, 6TH FLOOR, VTK-1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENT

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 I.T.A.NO.6 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.310 OF 2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST KOONAMKARA

SOMI CONVEYOR BELTING LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1 JODHPUR

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral) Superiority complex, greed for control and domination, even without ill-intentions, can suffocate any relationship because forced conformity breeds only rebellion and resistance, as has happened in the present matrimonial relationship between the parties, which spanned over a period of about 30 years. 1. An Appeal under

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Justice Sahidullah Munshi in G.A. No. 1735 of 2019, G.A. No. 1761 of 2019, G. A. No. 1786 of 2019, G. A. No. 1845 of 2019, G. A. No. 1005 of 2020, G.A. No. 1009 of 2020 and G.A. No. 1121 of 2020 in T.S. No. 6 of 2004 [Harsh Vardhan Lodha & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Newar & Ors.] downloaded from

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Justice Sahidullah Munshi in G.A. No. 1735 of 2019, G.A. No. 1761 of 2019, G. A. No. 1786 of 2019, G. A. No. 1845 of 2019, G. A. No. 1005 of 2020, G.A. No. 1009 of 2020 and G.A. No. 1121 of 2020 in T.S. No. 6 of 2004 [Harsh Vardhan Lodha & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Newar & Ors.] downloaded from

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. 3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 ARB.A NO. 51 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN O.P(ARB).405/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE (P), THALASSERY DATED 30/03/2015 REFUSING TO SET ASIDE AWARD NO.23/2011 DATED 03/09/2012. APPELLANT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: (PETITIONER IN OP(ARB) 405/2012 OF DISTRICT JUDGE (P)THALASSERY) KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

justice. Needless to record that on an analysis of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 391 is thus akin to Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.” 7. Thus, without any sufficient cause, the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed, hence, the same is liable to be and rejected at this stage. 8. The learned counsel

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

justice. Needless to record that on an analysis of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 391 is thus akin to Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.” 7. Thus, without any sufficient cause, the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed, hence, the same is liable to be and rejected at this stage. 8. The learned counsel

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

justice. Needless to record that on an analysis of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 391 is thus akin to Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.” 7. Thus, without any sufficient cause, the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed, hence, the same is liable to be and rejected at this stage. 8. The learned counsel

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

justice. Needless to record that on an analysis of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 391 is thus akin to Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.” 7. Thus, without any sufficient cause, the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed, hence, the same is liable to be and rejected at this stage. 8. The learned counsel

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

house of the legislature of the State, another statement showing the estimated amount of that expenditure or cause to be presented to the Legislative Assembly a demand for such excess as the case may be. Clause (1)(b) of Article 205 relates to amounts spent in excess of the amounts granted for a service for the financial year, and since

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority