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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

22 of 300 a. Injunction restraining the said two joint Administrators pendent lite of the Estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla from interfering with the assets and properties of the petitioner and more particularly its 100% shareholding in its three wholly owned subsidiaries, August Agents Limited, Insilco Agents Limited and Laneseda Agents Limited. b. Injunction restraining the said two joint Administrators

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

10 of 171 versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Mr. Sami Sameer Siddiqui, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

22 September 2021:- "I. Whether the learned Tribunal did not err in holding that the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 will not come into play in case of an exporter seeking rebate under Para 2 of Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012? Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.09.2023 17:25:37 Signature

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

22. It is noted that one of the important features of this affidavit is Annexure 1 which contains the indicative reference list of key words not to be allowed to individuals. The said list also contains names/marks of well known brands or companies which cannot be permitted to be registered as IDs of account holders without the permission

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

22. The Trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs examined one Sahul Hameed, that is, the 5th plaintiff as P.W-1 and one Manikam as P.W-2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-8 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs, likewise 2nd defendant Mapillai Meera Mohaideen was examined on the side of the defendants as D.W-1 and one Maria Selvaraj

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

10. There is no dispute that the complaint is based on ECIR dated 17th March, 2017 in which the respondent was shown as one of the accused. Moreover, clause (a) will apply during the continuation of the proceedings relating to an offence under the PMLA in a Court. There is no dispute that when an order under Section

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 on 10

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

22 49. In the present case, the plaintiff has, with conscious restraint, avoided any prayer for reinstatement or specific performance. The relief sought is confined to a declaratory finding of termination being in violation of the employment contract and consequential damages. However, this distinction does not expand the scope of judicial intervention in any manner whatsoever. 50. Even assuming procedural