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 TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

vii) Whether payment made to erstwhile trustees without services actually rendered by them, will fall outside the ambit of Sec.13 ? (viii) Whether mere book addition in the asset side of the balance sheet is sufficient to prove that asset has actually come into being, even if the same is not substantiated by bills or vouchers? 6. In I.T.A.No.47/2020

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

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

SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 58/2014 ON 2 THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 05.03.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.707/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL HAVING

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

vii) That, the Act is a self-contained code in so far as the question of making an application for probate, grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against a decision of the Probate Court. (viii) The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the Probate Court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

vii) That, the Act is a self-contained code in so far as the question of making an application for probate, grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against a decision of the Probate Court. (viii) The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the Probate Court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other

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