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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

11 :: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 I.T.A.NO.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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

11 SCC 356 58. 2003 5 SCC 568 59. (2012) 1 SCC 619 60. (2014) 12 SCC 696 61. (2014) 4 SCC 434 62. AIR 1961 SC 1457 63. (2004) 1 SCC 712) 64. AIR 1944 FC 86 65. 2 L. Ed. 276 66. (1997) 8 SCC 522 67. (2014) 4 SCC 583 68

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

11. Mr. Darius Khambatta, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants categorizes his submissions under various heads numbering about 30. We shall refer to the submissions in seriatim. It is submitted that the Section 34 of the Letters Patent confers testamentary jurisdiction on the High Court, a probate court exercises special and limited jurisdiction

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

11. Mr. Darius Khambatta, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants categorizes his submissions under various heads numbering about 30. We shall refer to the submissions in seriatim. It is submitted that the Section 34 of the Letters Patent confers testamentary jurisdiction on the High Court, a probate court exercises special and limited jurisdiction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S K.S. CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

3)/250 Rs. 125,52,57,206/- Less: Relief granted by the Hon'ble ITAT (Royalty from Brew Operator Agreement) Rs 2,72,68,740/- 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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

11 of 20 (g) shipping bill or bill of export on which rebate has been claimed on the basis of rate specified in the Schedule, by way of procedure specified in this paragraph, shall not be used for rebate claim on the basis of documents, specified in paragraph 3; (h) where the rebate involved in a shipping bill or bill

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

3 and 4, these pertain to merits of the case. The total additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the taxable income of the Appellant Assessee was Rs.9,41,000/- which was treated as ‘unexplained’ investment. 7. It must be noted that the above addition was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) after accepting the explanation of the Appellant

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

11 in number, not received in the application proforma under Rule 64 of Rules:- Opposite party 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 41, 42, 63, 66. 3. Number of the time tables annexed with the applications as per Sections 71, 72 & 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 63 of the Rules:- Time table is enclosed with

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SAINI

The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (For Short The "Itat") In The Online Portal Via E-Filing Mode, Against The Order Dated 27.7.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi {For Short The "Cit (Appeals)"}. However, Thereafter, He Was Not

68 days in filing the appeal has been filed. As such, for want of notice, the appellant could not appear and file such application. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Act. 3. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the notice of the appeal

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. HARISH JAIN

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 21.07.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri Crl.R.C.(Md)No.81 Of 2023 & Crl.M.P.(Md)No.1047 Of 2023 Prabavathi

68,000/-. In assessment year 2013–2014 (Ex.D2) it was only Rs. 3,10,000/-. The first Appellate Court erred in paragraph no.12 of its judgment in holding that the complainant was entitled to submit “altered” returns for earlier assessment years by paying tax with interest and penalty. There is no case for altered returns and that finding should have

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

3, 4, 6 and 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter “the Blocking Rules, 2009”). It is stated that if there is repeated non-compliance of Court orders by any DNR, then the same can be construed as a violation of public order under Section

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

68,294/- to M/s. Dugar Photofilms Limited (for short ‘DPFL’), of [2025:RJ-JP:13935-DB] (3 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] Rs.28,62,084/- to M/s. Tetenal India Limited and Rs.2,01,668/- to M/s. Mooji Tulsidas & Co. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant took the stand that the advances were in normal course of business

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

3 are decided against the plaintiff. Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2025 15:18:52 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified 24 Issue No.2: Whether the statement in the impugned termination letter as issued by the defendant, has resulted in the defamation of the plaintiff? OPP 54. In addition to asserting that the termination letter

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

11. Those observations are also clearly inconsistent with the law that had been laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Pandurang Krishnaji and cannot be regarded as having laid down such inconsistent law. Moreover, whatever may have been the practice in the years 1912 or 1924, the same cannot be regarded as the practice even eighty years

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.

Bench: The Learned Tribunal On The Ground That Their Predecessor, Namely, Ananta Chakraborty Died In A Road Traffic Accident Due To Rash & Negligent Driving Of The Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Duly Insured Under Policy Of The Insurance Company.

11,131/- in the relevant assessment year. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that other documents were marked which reflected the income of the deceased. We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return