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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of assessment made by the AO that there was bogus amount of capital gain entries by the assessee. He has relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case [2026:RJ-JP:12292-DB] (3 of 6) [ITA-44/2025] of Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

cash deposits, and that Mr. Ranjit Malik, in statements recorded under Sections 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA, admitted to non- filing of 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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

cash bonus to Class III and Class IV employees of the LIC. The effect of the 1976 Act was that Class III and Class IV employees of the LIC were to be deprived of the annual cash bonus to which they were entitled to in terms of clause 8(1) of the settlement. There was no reference to the judgment

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

deposit amount, (iv) Joint one half share in the stone pillared and tile roofed shop in a built up area of 4,440 square feet, (that is 2,220 square feet) including accessories and roof, along with tanning tanks. Note: It is specifically mentioned that all the machineries mentioned 42/85 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.83 of 2020 supra