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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

natural justice. The Rajsthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sanjay Chhabra (D.B. ITA No.22/2021) noted that prejudice is caused to assessee when material used against him is not provided and opportunity of cross-examination is not provided. The assessee is based in Rajasthan and the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the judgment passed by the Rajasthan

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

justice, do not extend to private employment contracts. 42. This Court in L.M. Khosla v. Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. 23 , relying on the decisions in S.S. Shetty, Vaish Degree College, and Binny, summarised the applicable legal principles holding inter alia that- (i) employment contracts of a private nature do not attract public law remedies; (ii) where a contract

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

nature, does not require adjudication.” 5. Mr. Raj Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant states that the above ‘concession’ by his counterpart before the ITAT was a mistake. This Court finds that no application was filed by the Appellant under Section 254 of the IT Act for rectification of the order. No review petition was even filed. In the circumstances

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T DHARMESH SHARMA, J. 1. The instant Appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner of Customs, Air-Cargo Export, New Delhi1 under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 19622 assailing the orders dated 24 February 2020 passed by Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal3, whereby it allowed the amendment

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

68 ; f. Ad interim order in terms of prayers above ; (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 28 of 300 g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. GA/4/2021 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Injunction

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

68 ; f. Ad interim order in terms of prayers above ; (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 28 of 300 g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. GA/4/2021 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Injunction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

68 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.238 OF 2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: SHRI. JOSE THOMAS PADINJAREVEETTIL, PUTHENVEEDU, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA -691 523. BY ADV.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR (SR.) BY ADV.SRI.R.SREEJITH BY ADV.SMT.TELMA

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Section 3 of the 1976 Act. The statement of objects and reasons disclosed that the purpose of the 1976 Act was to undo the settlements which had been arrived at between the Corporation and Class III and Class IV employees (the validity of which had been recognised by the order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The Directorate of Enforcement1 has filed the present appeals under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 20022, challenging the common order dated 10.06.2019 and the subsequent review order dated 20.09.2019 (collectively referred to as the „Impugned Orders‟), passed

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 256/2017 POOJA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. 3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons