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

10 of 20 (c) the rebate under the procedure specified in paragraph 3 shall not be claimed wherever the difference between the amount of rebate under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 is less than twenty per cent of the rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2, (d) no CENVAT credit of service tax paid

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

37. (1986) 2 SCC 68 38. AIR 1955 SC 549 2 39. ILR 1975 Delhi 634 40. AIR 1957 SC 699 41. AIR 1958 SC 468 42. AIR 1955 SC 540 43. AIR 1958 SC 956 44. (2018) 6 SCC 363 45. (2003) 5 SCC 298 46. (2003) 4 SCC 399 47. 1993 Supp

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

37. Therefore, Clause 10 of the employment contract unequivocally renders the nature of the contract to be determinable. 162025:DHC:5253 17(1991) 1 SCC 533 182000 SCC OnLine Del 481 192020 SCC OnLine Del 3250 Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2025 15:18:52 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified 15 38. The Court

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

10 corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence, and the inference to be drawn therefrom, cannot be agitated in certiorari proceedings (Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan: AIR 1964 SC 477) as it is in the province of a court of appeal. If the tribunal

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

37 of 241 is concerned, Mr. Krishnan submits that the Newfold Group is in compliance with Rule 3(2)(a) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter “IT Rules 2021”), as whenever any complaint is made by any user or victim, the acknowledgment is issued to said user/victim, within 24 hours

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

37. One of the findings in the Impugned Judgement that concerns us pertains to the scheme of Section 8(3) of the PMLA and, in particular, the finding that the said Section prescribes a time limit for the investigation itself. 38. In paragraph 24(c) of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Appellate Tribunal has held that Section

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SAMEER JAIN

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “ the Act”) mandates that “ just compensation” should be paid to the claimants. Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in the award of “just compensation” would not be in accordance with the Act. The word “ just” is of a very wide amplitude. The courts must interpret

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

37 years, agreeing to carry on a business in partnership firm in the name and style of M/s.M.M.P.M.Syed Mohammed with effect from 01.04.1993. It is recorded in the said deed that the name and style of the partnership firm shall continue to be M/s.M.M.P.M.Syed Mohammed and the place of partnership business shall be at Dindigul with the branch at Madras