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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 Court did not vest the joint APLs with power which PDB during

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

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 Court did not vest the joint APLs with power which PDB during

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 29.11.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the suit property bearing no. E-2, Upper Ground Floor, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar

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

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

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

properties in minute Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:20.01.2026 20:18:27 Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 86/2024 Page 3 of 14 details having regard to the totality of the aforenoted material on record, this court is of the considered view that reasonable estimate of the income of the non- applicant can be safely be assessed

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. SMT. KAJAL CHHABRAB

In the result, the revision stands dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

property and his old and ailing mother being dependent on him with his two RPFAM No.18 of 2021 Page 4 of 23 younger brothers is not able to pay the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- each to the OP Nos. 1 & 2. It is also contended in the objection by the revision-petitioner that he has a small residential house over land

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 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

SHRI LALLU RAM YADAV S/O GANESH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

5. At it, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that these factors may not be taken into 3 consideration in this revision because the revision may only touch upon the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. And even, the factors that took place post passing of the impugned order may not be taken into consideration

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 land

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

5. In this case, more than sufficient time and opportunity of hearing has been provided by the trial Court to both the parties, but the appellant has failed to produce the service of notice to the respondent. The only ground raised by the appellant in his application under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code is, due to inadvertence

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

5. In this case, more than sufficient time and opportunity of hearing has been provided by the trial Court to both the parties, but the appellant has failed to produce the service of notice to the respondent. The only ground raised by the appellant in his application under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code is, due to inadvertence

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

5. In this case, more than sufficient time and opportunity of hearing has been provided by the trial Court to both the parties, but the appellant has failed to produce the service of notice to the respondent. The only ground raised by the appellant in his application under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code is, due to inadvertence