THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI PAWAN GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of assessment made by the AO that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of assessment made by the AO that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S K.S. CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

68,740/- The other additions made in the assessment order under head Royalty on Handsets of Rs.78,53,40,000/- and Royalty on Infrastructure Equipments of Rs 39,04,76,313/- are also being reduced for giving statistical effect to the order of hon'ble ITAT. Net Taxable Income Rs. 5,32,88,790/- Appeal effect given as above

MANDA BUILDERS vs. I.T.O.WARD-21,BIKANER

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

addition made u/S.68 of the Act particularly when the books of accounts maintained in day to day course of business does not show any unexplained cash credit? 4. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Section 68 of the Act has any application?” 3. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent (Department) points out that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. HARISH JAIN

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 21.07.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri Crl.R.C.(Md)No.81 Of 2023 & Crl.M.P.(Md)No.1047 Of 2023 Prabavathi

Section 138 satisfied, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused, sentenced her to nine months simple imprisonment, directed payment of Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation within one month and in default, imposed a further two months simple imprisonment. Judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi:- 6.In Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2017, the appellant raised grounds that

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. KAJAL CHHABRA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

68 of the said Act on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export of goods shall not be eligible to claim rebate under this notification; (c) the manufacturer-exporter, who is registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, shall file a claim for rebate of service

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) are filed against the orders dated [2025:RJ-JP:13935-DB] (2 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] 31.07.2008 and 20.06.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity ‘the tribunal’). 3. On 01.12.2008 and 18.11.2009, the appeals were admitted on following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Additional C.S.C. for the State; and by Sri Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents in this appeal. Sri A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel, would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Mithilesh Garg & others vs. Union of India & others: (1992) 1 SCC 168, to submit that the respondents in these appeals, as well

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL HUF

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

income tax returns by him and his wife, i.e., the Respondent herein, and further failed to explain the Rs. 20 lakh transfer to Mr. Gagan Dhawan from the joint account of Mr. Ranjit Malik and Respondent (Account No. 50100016189014) or the source of deposits, offering only evasive responses. 20. Learned Counsel appearing for the ED would contend that the Respondent

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

68. AIR 1966 SC 1637 69. (1973) 1 SCR 515 70. (2013) SCC OnLine 622 (Bom HC DB) 71. (2003) ECR 783 (SC) 72. (2015) 4 SCC 400 73. AIR 1996 SC 188). 74. (1975) Supp SCC 1 75. AIR 1963 SC 1742 76. Criminal Appeal No. 75/69 decided

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR-II vs. M/S VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SAMEER JAIN

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No.523/2015. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.15,72,360/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants with 9% interest per 2 annum on account of death of deceased Kamlesh Dahariya in an unfortunate accident which took place on 16.05.2015 by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person. Article 25: Data protection by design and by default: 1. Taking into account the state of the art, the cost of implementation and the nature, scope

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

additional market value under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

income during the notice period or until alternative suitable employment is secured, whichever is earlier. Where the employment contract provides for termination by notice, the quantum of damages is ordinarily restricted to the wages payable during that notice period. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision further clarified that compensation cannot be awarded for emotional distress, injury to reputation

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD

In the result, Appeal Suit is allowed and the impugned judgment and

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 28.02.2024 Pronounced On : 21.05.2024 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.83 Of 2020 1.Jainambeevi 2.Sakkinam Begam 3.Mariam Beevi 4.Fathima Beevi 5.Sahul Hameed 6.Umar Habiba 7.Minor.Sirin Farhana

Section 17 mandates that transfer of immovable property by means of a release deed require registration. 62. This Court has dealt with a case of unregistered release deed in Ammamuthu Ammal vs Devaraj, reported in 2011(5) MLJ 15 (Madras) and the relevant portion is extracted as follows: “If the recitals in the document do display and demonstrate, express