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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

45 of 300 c. Leave be given to the petitioner to add, vary and/or amend the Memorandum of Appeal upon judgment and order dated 18th September, 2020 being made available to the petitioners. d. Leave be granted to the petitioner to file the instant appeal with a copy of the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2020 passed

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

45 of 300 c. Leave be given to the petitioner to add, vary and/or amend the Memorandum of Appeal upon judgment and order dated 18th September, 2020 being made available to the petitioners. d. Leave be granted to the petitioner to file the instant appeal with a copy of the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2020 passed

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

45 56. (2005) 5 SCC 91 57. (2016) 11 SCC 356 58. 2003 5 SCC 568 59. (2012) 1 SCC 619 60. (2014) 12 SCC 696 61. (2014) 4 SCC 434 62. AIR 1961 SC 1457 63. (2004) 1 SCC 712) 64. AIR 1944 FC 86 65. 2

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

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

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

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