PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

4. The learned Single Judge held that, in view of Section 153(7) of the Act, the notice dated 06.11.2020 was barred by limitation and accordingly quashed the same. The learned Single Judge further directed the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee’s claim for refund. 5. Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants–Revenue

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

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

4 of 5 on account of the cash flow statement for the initial assessment year 1990-91. This comprised Rs.1 lakh and marriage (cash) gift of Rs.50,000/-, marriage (gold) gift of Rs.1,15,000/- and postal interest of Rs.35,000/- receipt from husband – Rs. 2 lakhs, own earnings during 1990-91 to 2002-03 amounting to Rs.66,000/-, customary

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

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. SMT. KAJAL CHHABRA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

4 of the Central Excise Act1944(1 of 1944); (b) the rebate shall be claimed either on the basis of rates specified in the Schedule of rates annexed to this notification (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule), as per the procedure specified in paragraph 2 or on the basis of documents, as per the procedure specified in paragraph 3; Digitally

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

68. In one of the suits, which was part of the batch matters, i.e., CS(Comm) 176/2021 titled Snapdeal Private Limited vs. GoDaddycom LLC & Ors., the Court vide order dated 13th July, 2022 had observed as under: “7. Ms. Shweta Sahu, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 submits that the Defendant No.1 - GoDaddy has an abuse policy

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

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, (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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 153(2A) would have to be computed accordingly. 10. Our attention was drawn to the order of 12 March 2015 which reads thus:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

4 SCC 160 22(2005) 6 SCC 657 232012 SCC OnLine Del 4019 Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2025 15:18:52 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified 19 termination by notice, only monetary compensation limited to the notice period is recoverable in law; and (iii) under Section 14 of SRA, determinable contracts

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

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

4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.81 of 2023 communications at her residential address, so she could not absolve liability for non-impleading of the proprietorship. The requirement for transactions above Rs.50,000/- to be through banking channels is directory. The absence of proof of banking transaction did not falsify the claim, given the complainant’s admitted business