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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

12 examination or an elaborate argument to establish it (Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd; Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque & others: AIR 1955 SC 233; Batuk K. Vyas vs. Surat Borough Municipality & others: AIR 1953 Bom 133). An error cannot be said to be apparent if one has to travel beyond the record

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

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

1)(c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

68 of Schedule 1, Table F gives them such power. The share holders can pass resolutions by majority as Section 114 of the Companies Act gives such power. In terms of Sections 29 and 31(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Joint Arbitrators can pass awards by majority. Under Section 17(3) of the Waqf

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

68 of Schedule 1, Table F gives them such power. The share holders can pass resolutions by majority as Section 114 of the Companies Act gives such power. In terms of Sections 29 and 31(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Joint Arbitrators can pass awards by majority. Under Section 17(3) of the Waqf

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

c) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 67 of 171 Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

section 68 of the said Act on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export of goods shall not be eligible to claim rebate under this notification; (c) the manufacturer-exporter, who is registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, shall file a claim for rebate

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

c. Mr. Mansatkar Singh as Defendant Witness No.1 (DW-1) 24. It is also seen that the defendant has not placed on record any document. The joint document schedule has listed the following documents:- Particulars of the Document Exhibited as The true copy of the Plaintiff's ID Card and employee letters

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

1, Article 4(5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights

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

12. Submissions of the Appellants / Plaintiffs: The learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs submitted that, the suit properties are situated in Seelappadi village of Dindigal Taluk. Those properties were purchased by a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1976 together by the sons of one Mapillai Meera Mohaideen Sayabu, namely Syed Mohammed, Mohammed Abdullah and Jamalia Syed Yaseen. Thus, all those three