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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

v. State of U.P. and Ors.[1], respondents 2 to 6 had no entitlement in law to occupy any accommodation, provided by the State Government free of 6 cost, post their demitting office as Chief Ministers, since the initial orders of allotment, in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lok Prahiri- I[1], was itself

M/S S B L PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 72 JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

1) Every Council of the Municipality shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules as may be prescribed, levy property tax on every building (including the land appurtenant thereto) situated within the area of the respective Municipality and not exempted as per the provisions of the Act. (2) (a) For the purpose of levying property

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

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

v. Bal Ram & Anr2 to submit that if the nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section 3(4) of the Takeover

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

1. “And whereas the first party for his/her/their bonafide needs and requirements the first party has agreed to sell, transfer, convey all his/her/their rights, interests, titles in respect of the above said property, to the second party for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs only) out of which the First party has received

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

9 of 14 she was living at the God’s mercy. Her woes increased when in the year 1986 her father expired and she was left with no means to support herself and the children. 24. In the year 1990 with great difficulty she was able to convince the respondent/husband to let her open a boutique at Shop No.22, Archna

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

1, Article 4(5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights