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

SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 58/2014 ON 2 THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 05.03.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.707/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL HAVING

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

100. (1981)1 SCC 246 101. (1955) 1 SCR 1045 3 102. (1964) 6 SCR 903 103. 1952 CriLJ 805 104. 1952 CriLJ 1167 105. 1953 CriLJ 911 106. 1953 CriLJ

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 pendent lite from interfering with the management and affairs of the petitioner and its wholly owned subsidiaries ; c. Direction upon the Administrators pendent lite to forthwith withdraw the letters written by them being Annexures

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

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 pendent lite from interfering with the management and affairs of the petitioner and its wholly owned subsidiaries ; c. Direction upon the Administrators pendent lite to forthwith withdraw the letters written by them being Annexures

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

100 of 2019 Suresh Kumar Mahapatra S/o Late Goverdhan Mahapatra Aged About 39 Years R/o Shivananad Nagar, Sector 3, Kargil Chowk, Police Station- Khamtarai, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Dinesh Agrawal S/o Late Kishan Lal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years Proprietor - Dinesh Enterprises, R/o E-424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Raadhakrishna Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Police Station- Azad Chowk Raipur

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

100 of 2019 Suresh Kumar Mahapatra S/o Late Goverdhan Mahapatra Aged About 39 Years R/o Shivananad Nagar, Sector 3, Kargil Chowk, Police Station- Khamtarai, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Dinesh Agrawal S/o Late Kishan Lal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years Proprietor - Dinesh Enterprises, R/o E-424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Raadhakrishna Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Police Station- Azad Chowk Raipur

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

100 of 2019 Suresh Kumar Mahapatra S/o Late Goverdhan Mahapatra Aged About 39 Years R/o Shivananad Nagar, Sector 3, Kargil Chowk, Police Station- Khamtarai, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Dinesh Agrawal S/o Late Kishan Lal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years Proprietor - Dinesh Enterprises, R/o E-424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Raadhakrishna Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Police Station- Azad Chowk Raipur

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

100 of 2019 Suresh Kumar Mahapatra S/o Late Goverdhan Mahapatra Aged About 39 Years R/o Shivananad Nagar, Sector 3, Kargil Chowk, Police Station- Khamtarai, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Dinesh Agrawal S/o Late Kishan Lal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years Proprietor - Dinesh Enterprises, R/o E-424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Raadhakrishna Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Police Station- Azad Chowk Raipur

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

property. If a party is able to show ownership over the intellectual property, upon a request being made via the NPRD form, GoDaddy would be required to investigate and respond to the said request withing a period of 30 days. It is argued that the such methods adopted by GoDaddy show that it is exercising its powers in a Digitally