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. 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

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

20 years respectively. Admittedly, the parties have not been cohabiting as husband and wife since August, 2022. However, they continue to reside in the same 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

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 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

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

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

20 of 300 GA/1/2020 (APO/91/2020) Prayer a. Leave be granted to the appellant to file the present appeal from the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi in G.A. No. 1735 of 2019 in T.S. No. 6 of 2004 along with other connected applications [Harsh Vardhan Lodha & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Newar

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

20 of 300 GA/1/2020 (APO/91/2020) Prayer a. Leave be granted to the appellant to file the present appeal from the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi in G.A. No. 1735 of 2019 in T.S. No. 6 of 2004 along with other connected applications [Harsh Vardhan Lodha & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Newar

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. M/S SILVER AND ARTS PALACE

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

Section 139 of the Act, no exception thereto can be taken.” 20. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 791 whereby in paras 6, 7, and 9 the Hon’ble Supreme

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Section 139 of the Act, no exception thereto can be taken.” 20. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 791 whereby in paras 6, 7, and 9 the Hon’ble Supreme

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Section 139 of the Act, no exception thereto can be taken.” 20. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 791 whereby in paras 6, 7, and 9 the Hon’ble Supreme

SMT. BADAMI DEVI KUMAWAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: PRAKASH GUPTA,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Section 139 of the Act, no exception thereto can be taken.” 20. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 791 whereby in paras 6, 7, and 9 the Hon’ble Supreme

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENRAL vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA

In the result, the impugned orders of the

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. H.J. SIWANI FATHER NAME: JUSAB KASAM SIWANI. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, 6TH FLOOR, VTK-1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. HEMAKUMAR, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS STA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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