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

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

12. With the above reasoning, the learned single bench of this court refused to grant injunction against BCL as being the third party to the testamentary suit. It is submitted that the same principle would apply in the instant case and no interim order can be passed affecting BCL and other companies, trusts and societies by a coordinate bench

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

12. With the above reasoning, the learned single bench of this court refused to grant injunction against BCL as being the third party to the testamentary suit. It is submitted that the same principle would apply in the instant case and no interim order can be passed affecting BCL and other companies, trusts and societies by a coordinate bench

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

property, and in case, the Second party fails to get the 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

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

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

house rent, electric charges, repayment of loan, LIC payments etc. are permitted….” 18. In the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs. Parmvir Parmar reported in (2011) 13 SCC 112, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the quantum of maintenance inter- alia depends on the status of the husband. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed in paragraph ‘12

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

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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SUNIL DUTT JAIN

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

house, bills of essential amenities like electricity, water etc. installed at common residence commonly by the parties, non- applicant is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.60,000/- per month as interim maintenance towards all other expenses in order to enable petitioner-wife her to enjoy similar status as enjoyed by respondent-husband of petitioner- wife from the date

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

house to be ransacked and all her valuables missing. Next day, she approached the respondent to reason out with him and to persuade him to return to the matrimonial home, but she was physically assaulted and removed from the premises. 27. The appellant claimed that the respondent had no money or property in the year 1974, but after his marriage

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

12 SCC 714: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 374 whereby in para 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. ** The High Court upon analysing the materials brought on record by the parties had arrived at a finding of fact that in view of the conduct of the parties it would not be prudent to hold that

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

12 SCC 714: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 374 whereby in para 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. ** The High Court upon analysing the materials brought on record by the parties had arrived at a finding of fact that in view of the conduct of the parties it would not be prudent to hold that

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

12 SCC 714: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 374 whereby in para 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. ** The High Court upon analysing the materials brought on record by the parties had arrived at a finding of fact that in view of the conduct of the parties it would not be prudent to hold that

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

12 SCC 714: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 374 whereby in para 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. ** The High Court upon analysing the materials brought on record by the parties had arrived at a finding of fact that in view of the conduct of the parties it would not be prudent to hold that

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot Hotel

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