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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

22 of 300 a. Injunction restraining the said two joint Administrators pendent lite of the Estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla from interfering with the assets and properties of the petitioner and more particularly its 100% shareholding in its three wholly owned subsidiaries, August Agents Limited, Insilco Agents Limited and Laneseda Agents Limited. b. Injunction restraining the said two joint Administrators

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

22 of 300 a. Injunction restraining the said two joint Administrators pendent lite of the Estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla from interfering with the assets and properties of the petitioner and more particularly its 100% shareholding in its three wholly owned subsidiaries, August Agents Limited, Insilco Agents Limited and Laneseda Agents Limited. b. Injunction restraining the said two joint Administrators

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

In the result, the revision stands dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

house on rent. With the aforesaid averments, the revision-petitioner has prayed to dismiss the maintenance proceeding. 3. After having considered the rival pleas upon hearing the parties, the learned Judge Family Court, Bargarh by formulating some points proceeded to dispose the maintenance proceeding U/S. 125 of CrPC by allowing the same with consequential direction to the present revision-petitioner

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

10. On bare perusal of Section 146 of the NI Act, it states that the stamp of the Bank should be officially marked in the cheque return memo, for sake of argument if accepting the submission of appellant that the cheque return memo is a mere information given by the banker to the due holder of the cheque, in those

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

10. On bare perusal of Section 146 of the NI Act, it states that the stamp of the Bank should be officially marked in the cheque return memo, for sake of argument if accepting the submission of appellant that the cheque return memo is a mere information given by the banker to the due holder of the cheque, in those

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

10. On bare perusal of Section 146 of the NI Act, it states that the stamp of the Bank should be officially marked in the cheque return memo, for sake of argument if accepting the submission of appellant that the cheque return memo is a mere information given by the banker to the due holder of the cheque, in those

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

10. On bare perusal of Section 146 of the NI Act, it states that the stamp of the Bank should be officially marked in the cheque return memo, for sake of argument if accepting the submission of appellant that the cheque return memo is a mere information given by the banker to the due holder of the cheque, in those

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act, after such functionaries had demitted public office, would clearly be subject to judicial review on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; this was particularly so as such bungalows constituted public property which, by itself,was scarce and meant for the use of current holders of public offices; the questions

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Sections 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955. 2. The facts in brief as narrated in the pleadings are that the parties got DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:18.01.2024 20:01:06 Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 21/2019 Page 2 of 14 married according to Sikh customs and rites on 24.02.1974. Two sons namely, Amarpreet Singh and Satnam Singh were

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (T.D.S.) JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHD. NIZAMUDDIN

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

22-12-2023 This revision application has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 11.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’ or ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Maintenance Case No. 153 of 2016. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court has been pleased to grant maintenance

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

property rights of the plaintiff and to deceive members of the public into believing that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are in fact authorised by the plaintiff to recruit franchisees. The fact that the defendant nos. I and 2 seek deposit of money by potential franchisees into a designated bank account [which account has been opened in the name

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 24 of HMA, seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per month. 6. By way of the impugned order, the Family Court assessed the monthly disposable income of the Husband in the range of Rs. Rs.1,10,000/- per month and directed the Husband to pay a cumulative sum of Rs.66,000/- per month as interim

PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI KUSHAL KUMAR LUNAWAT

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Section 24 of HMA, seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per month. 6. By way of the impugned order, the Family Court assessed the monthly disposable income of the Husband in the range of Rs. Rs.1,10,000/- per month and directed the Husband to pay a cumulative sum of Rs.66,000/- per month as interim

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

property? But, definitely, these transactions were post passing of the impugned order. They were not the part of the record before the court below. Therefore, this Court refrains to make any further discussion on that issue and those transactions shall not have any bearing while examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned judgment and order. 7. Admittedly, this