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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

Section 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood at the relevant time similarly provided that "all income shall for the purposes of charge of income tax and computation of total income be classified under six heads of income," namely:- (A) Salaries; (B) Interest on Securities; (C) Income from house property

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

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

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

14. It is further submitted that PDB did not have the right to determine the manner of voting of the other group entities. Other group entities were legally in a position to either accept or reject her directions. These group entities had and continue to have eminent people on their board including very senior former public servants and other highly

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

14. It is further submitted that PDB did not have the right to determine the manner of voting of the other group entities. Other group entities were legally in a position to either accept or reject her directions. These group entities had and continue to have eminent people on their board including very senior former public servants and other highly

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

house, i.e., the matrimonial home situated at property bearing No. B-4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, albeit under the same roof but in separate portions/rooms on the ground floor of the said property. 3. On 29.05.2023, the respondent-wife had filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., alleging financial deprivation, cruelty, and adultery on the part of the petitioner-husband

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

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

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

properties. According to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.22 of 2019 dt.22-12-2023 3/18 the petitioner, her husband has a monthly income of about Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the above background, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in the learned Family Court for maintenance. 4. The Opposite Party No. 2 appeared

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

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

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

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

house also stated that he did not remember the date when the said sum of Rs 1,50,000 was paid to him. 6.2. As regards the source for advancing the sum of Rs. 1,50,000, the respondent claimed that the same was from and out of the sale consideration of his share in the family property, apart from

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

house also stated that he did not remember the date when the said sum of Rs 1,50,000 was paid to him. 6.2. As regards the source for advancing the sum of Rs. 1,50,000, the respondent claimed that the same was from and out of the sale consideration of his share in the family property, apart from

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

house also stated that he did not remember the date when the said sum of Rs 1,50,000 was paid to him. 6.2. As regards the source for advancing the sum of Rs. 1,50,000, the respondent claimed that the same was from and out of the sale consideration of his share in the family property, apart from

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

house also stated that he did not remember the date when the said sum of Rs 1,50,000 was paid to him. 6.2. As regards the source for advancing the sum of Rs. 1,50,000, the respondent claimed that the same was from and out of the sale consideration of his share in the family property, apart from