MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 Bagh, Kalindi Colony

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MADAN GOPAL VYAS

reassessment notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, which as per the provisions of Section 149 of the IT Act, provided for an outer time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. till 31-3-2023, particularly when the assertion of the source of cash deposit tracing it to closing balance

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.9.2016 PASSEDON M.V.C.No.445/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND IV MACT AT CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE M.F.As. CONNECTED WITH M.F.A. CROBS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COMMON