RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

deduction of tax, it is `3,02,384/-. ITRs for subsequent year i.e. 2009-10 cannot be made the basis to alter the quantum of compensation as the said ITR was filed shortly after the accident in question had taken place and so, it cannot be said that income of Injured had increased after the accident. Relevantly

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JODHPUR vs. GAJ SINGH

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

deducted from the aforesaid amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,49,698/-. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.79,95,168/- (Rs.4,49,698/- x 16) under the head 'Loss of dependency'. 8. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI SURENDRA MEENA

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, which were commenced by issuance of the notice dated 28.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The Assessee is a national political party and is registered with the Election Commission of India [ECI] by a certificate dated 10.01.2000. The Assessee filed its return of income on 29.02.2016, declaring a Nil income, after claiming

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

deducting the amount paid by them as rent, was directed to be paid by respondents 3 to 6 within the aforesaid period of six months. 5 4. The Division Bench further directed the State Government to compute the amounts due and payable towards amenities such as electricity, water, petrol, oil, lubricants etc, provided by the State Government to respondents

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