PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30667-DB WA No. 68 of 2024 more than four occasions, specifically states that 'in respect of cases pending as on 01.06.2016, the time limit for passing such orders is proposed to be extended to 31.03.2017.' The Memorandum, in unequivocal terms, supports the contention of the respondent–assessee. Hence, it is to be held

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 of posh colonies such as Maharani

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

10]). (b) ENTRIES IN THE THREE LISTS OF THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE SHOULD BE GIVEN WIDE AMPLITUDE : 21. A Constitution is the mechanism under which the laws are to be made, and is not merely an Act which provides what the law is to be. (India Cements Ltd.[9]; and Attorney General for the State of New South Wales

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

10. In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that there was any fresh material nor any tangible material which would permit the authorities to reassess or issue said notice. Decision of Nokia will not apply to facts of this case.” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. As noticed hereinabove, in Entry No. 60(6)(g) of the Punjab