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

40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

40 and 42 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 were referred to. Section 5 of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and Section 16 of the State Act were also referred to. It is submitted that PDB during her lifetime did not have any right of nomination of any Member of the managing committees to the societies or any trust. This

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

40 and 42 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 were referred to. Section 5 of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and Section 16 of the State Act were also referred to. It is submitted that PDB during her lifetime did not have any right of nomination of any Member of the managing committees to the societies or any trust. This

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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

house to be ransacked and all her valuables missing. Next day, she approached the respondent to reason out with him and to persuade him to return to the matrimonial home, but she was physically assaulted and removed from the premises. 27. The appellant claimed that the respondent had no money or property in the year 1974, but after his marriage

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

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 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

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

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

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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