RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

business and according to Injured, he is now a liability on his family. There is nothing in cross-examination of the Injured to justify the assessment of functional disability of the Injured at 40%. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to assess the functional disability of the Injured

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I vs. SHRI ARVIND GOTEWAL S/O SHREERAM GOTEWAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

business of generation of power. The Company filed its 5 return of income declaring a total income of Rs.28,81,94,767/- for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.358 of 2018 and 360 of 2018, Rs.16,40,64,897/- for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.359 of 2018 and tax was computed on the book profit

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHREE CEMENT LIMITED

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the “Act”). 2. Brief facts are that the respondent-Company for assessment year (for short “AY”) filed the returns and the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The proceedings were initiated under Section 148 on the basis that the appellant has wrongly debited the Education Cess in the profit

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

In the result, the impugned orders of the

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-1/SMR/CR-27/2019-20 BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU, ORDER, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 PASSED IN VAT.AP.NO.65/15-16 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)- 1, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 10.06.2015 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (ADUIT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

BUSINESS CENTRE NEW HOSUR ROAD WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. KRISHNA.T.C …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. T.SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2022 PASSED IN STA NOS.224/2018, 225/2018 AND 226/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

BUSINESS, HAVING ITSREGISTERED OFFICE AT PEARAVOOR, MANATHANA AMSOM,PEARAVOOR PO, PIN.670673, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.CIBI THOMAS SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Arbitration Appeal.No.51 of 2017 2 AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ. ========================================= Arbitration Appeal.No.51 of 2017 ========================================= Dated this the 13th

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Income Tax Officer, Salary Circle[39]) and not prior thereto.Any expenditure which the Government incurs, in implementing its policies, should be authorized by the Appropriation Act which is a law as contemplated by Article 282 (Bhim Singh[31]; S. Subramaniam Balaji[36] and Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur[38]) which stipulates that the Union or the States may make

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause