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

30 years. Therefore, the claim of the Plaintiffs, if any is hopelessly barred by limitation. The said Jamalia Syed Yaseen who died on 30.09.1987 never took any part in the business of the Firm and he had never been in enjoyment of the suit property. The said Jamalia Syed Yaseen had never been paid any income from the said business

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act speaks of succession to immovable and movable property of the deceased, only properties bequeathable. “Property” connotes an ownership or right which does not depend on the courtesy of others. It signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as a having money value with

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act speaks of succession to immovable and movable property of the deceased, only properties bequeathable. “Property” connotes an ownership or right which does not depend on the courtesy of others. It signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as a having money value with

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

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

30. AIR 1989 SC 2105 31. (2010) 5 SCC 538 32. (2011) 5 SCC 29 33. (1996) 10 SCC 665 34. AIR 1965 SC 745 35. AIR 1969 Guj 74 36. (2013) 9 SCC 659 37. (1986) 2 SCC 68 38. AIR 1955 SC 549 2 39. ILR 1975 Delhi

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

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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

30 years. 1. An Appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as “HMA, 1955”) has been filed on behalf of the appellant/wife (Respondent in the Divorce Petition) against the Judgment dated 03.05.2018 of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, granting divorce on the ground

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

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 in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

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 in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

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 in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

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 in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section

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

Bench: SABINA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

properties of the Opposite Party No.2 as she had simply filed the salary slip of the Opposite Party No.2. It has also been noticed that the Opposite Party No.2 was paying Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner by order of this court in miscellaneous case. Thus, in ultimate analysis, the Family Court has granted Rs. 10,000/- per month

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

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 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