PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD

In the result, Appeal Suit is allowed and the impugned judgment and

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 28.02.2024 Pronounced On : 21.05.2024 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.83 Of 2020 1.Jainambeevi 2.Sakkinam Begam 3.Mariam Beevi 4.Fathima Beevi 5.Sahul Hameed 6.Umar Habiba 7.Minor.Sirin Farhana

house property were also allotted to the share of Mohammed Abdullah, for the purpose of changing the tax registry and for incidental purposes, he wanted a document in writing evidencing the allotment of the said property towards his share in the partnership firm. Hence, on 09.11.1983, a registered partition deed was entered into between Mohammed Abdullah, Syed Mohammed and Jamalia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:20.01.2026 20:18:27 Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 86/2024 Page 2 of 14 the petitioner-husband has been directed to pay a sum of ₹60,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife and to continue to allow

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

2. That the first party shall handover the vacant physical possession of the said property to the second party at the time of full and final payments and also handed over the photocopy of the relating document the said property to the second party at the time of Bayana payments, in respect of the said Property...... 5. That after receiving

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. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

property rights of the plaintiff and to deceive members of the public into believing that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are in fact authorised by the plaintiff to recruit franchisees. The fact that the defendant nos. I and 2 seek deposit of money by potential franchisees into a designated bank account [which account has been opened in the name

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

2. MAT.APP. (F.C.) 87/2019, has been filed by Mr Sanjay Kumar Baranwal (‘Husband’) seeking setting aside/modification of the impugned order dated 29th January, 2019, passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi (‘Family Court’) whereby the application filed by the Mrs Bhavna Kumari (‘Wife’) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (‘HMA’) was disposed of, directing

PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI KUSHAL KUMAR LUNAWAT

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

2. MAT.APP. (F.C.) 87/2019, has been filed by Mr Sanjay Kumar Baranwal (‘Husband’) seeking setting aside/modification of the impugned order dated 29th January, 2019, passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi (‘Family Court’) whereby the application filed by the Mrs Bhavna Kumari (‘Wife’) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (‘HMA’) was disposed of, directing

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