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

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 Bagh, Kalindi Colony

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

19(4) of the Family Court, 1984, r/w Section-401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) G.Debendra Rao …. Petitioner -versus- G.Puspa Prabha Rao & another …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A.Pradhan, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16.09.2025 G. Satapathy, J. 1. In the instant revision

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

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

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

4 SCC 54: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166 whereby in para 30 and 44 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “30. The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance with legal requirements before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a court of law. Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

4 SCC 54: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166 whereby in para 30 and 44 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “30. The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance with legal requirements before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a court of law. Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

4 SCC 54: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166 whereby in para 30 and 44 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “30. The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance with legal requirements before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a court of law. Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

4 SCC 54: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166 whereby in para 30 and 44 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “30. The proviso appended to the said section provides for compliance with legal requirements before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a court of law. Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

19 of 300 f. Ad interim orders in term of prayers above ; g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed, direction or directions be given as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. OCO/12/2020 – Cross Objection in A.P.O. No. 90 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, the respondent No. 5 OCO/21/2020 – Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

19 of 300 f. Ad interim orders in term of prayers above ; g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed, direction or directions be given as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. OCO/12/2020 – Cross Objection in A.P.O. No. 90 of 2020 filed by Pradip Kumar Khaitan, the respondent No. 5 OCO/21/2020 – Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

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

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

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

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

4. The Opposite Party No. 2 appeared in the Family Court and opposed the application seeking maintenance. He alleged that the petitioner is of weak mind, indisciplined and selfish. He alleged that his wife was quarrelsome and assaulting him. The Opposite Party No.2 admitted birth of son from the wedlock but claimed that he was always providing monetary help

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