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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

23 of 300 e. Direction upon the Administrators pendent lite to forthwith withdraw the letters dated 20th May, 2021 and 21st May, 2021 being Annexures “S” and “T” respectively hereto as well as any other similar letter. f. Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above ; g. Such further orders or directions be passed as this Hon’ble Court

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. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

23 and 24 of the order dated 14th September, 2022, extracted hereinabove, would apply mutatis mutandis to both GoDaddy and Hosting Concepts. 58. In respect of the directions passed on 14th September, 2022, qua appointment of Grievance Officers by the DNRs, a status report was filed by MeitY, wherein it was recorded as under: “As of today, MeitY does

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

23. (1994) 5 SCC 314). 24. Order in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 90 of 2010 dated 03.05.2019 25. (1994) 3 SCC 1 26. (1992) 1 SCC 558 27. AIR 1952 SC 525 28. AIR 1958 SC 538 29. AIR 1960 SC 457 30. AIR 1989 SC 2105 31. (2010) 5 SCC 538 32. (2011) 5 SCC 29 33. (1996) 10

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

23 ordinarily implicit in relationships governed by public law, so as to determine whether the termination was just or not. Moreover, the defendant has also complied with Clause 10 by disbursing two months‟ notice pay, thereby satisfying its contractual obligation. 51. Accordingly, in the present factual matrix, where the employment contract is unequivocally determinable at the discretion of either party

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

23,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand only) by the strength of sale deed bearing document No.326 of 1976 of Joint-I Sub-Registry, Dindigul. The recitals of the said sale deed has no details about their joint business in the name and style of M. M. P. M. Syed Mohammed. Nor anywhere in the aforesaid sale deed, it has been