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

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 Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 read with

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

13. It is further submitted that no shareholder has any interest in the assets of the company. This proposition was accepted by the learned single bench and has agreed with the coordinate bench judgment in Harsh Vardhan Lodha Versus Ajoy Kumar Newar and Others 4. For the same proposition, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

13. It is further submitted that no shareholder has any interest in the assets of the company. This proposition was accepted by the learned single bench and has agreed with the coordinate bench judgment in Harsh Vardhan Lodha Versus Ajoy Kumar Newar and Others 4. For the same proposition, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

E-2, Upper Ground Floor, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and with respect to which, the parties had entered into two agreements on RFA No. 322/2017 Page 2 of 34 20.02.2008, one being an Agreement to Sell and another being an Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter „MOU‟). 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

E-424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Raadhakrishna Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Police Station- Azad Chowk Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause-Title taken from the Case Information System) 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15.03.2024 1. This petition is filed under Section

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

E-424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Raadhakrishna Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Police Station- Azad Chowk Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause-Title taken from the Case Information System) 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15.03.2024 1. This petition is filed under Section

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

E-424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Raadhakrishna Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Police Station- Azad Chowk Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause-Title taken from the Case Information System) 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15.03.2024 1. This petition is filed under Section

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

E-424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Raadhakrishna Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Police Station- Azad Chowk Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause-Title taken from the Case Information System) 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15.03.2024 1. This petition is filed under Section

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

1, Article 4(5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of 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