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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

1. Applications having empty columns: Columns were not completely filled by opposite party nos. 5, 8, 13, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 53, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 85. 2. Application, total 11 in number, not received in the application proforma under Rule

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 13

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

1. M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LTD., UB TOWERS, No.24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30667-DB WA No. 68 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

13. AIR 1939 FC 1 14. (1961) 3 SCR 242 15. AIR 1967 SC 1801 16. (1969) 2 SCC 166 17. AIR 1962 SC 1044) 18. AIR 1955 SC 58 19. (1940) FCR 110). 20. 1955 (1) Supp SCC 596 21. (1936) AC 578 22. (2018) 4 SCC 743). 23. (1994) 5 SCC 314). 24. Order in Writ Petition

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

13 of 300 Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debdatta Sen, Adv. Mr. Swarnendu Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Suchismita Chatterejee Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Malay Kumar Seal, Adv. Mr. Prasun Ghosh, Adv. ...for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Pandey, Adv. ...for respondent No. 5 Mr. C.A. Sundaram

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

13 of 300 Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debdatta Sen, Adv. Mr. Swarnendu Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Suchismita Chatterejee Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Malay Kumar Seal, Adv. Mr. Prasun Ghosh, Adv. ...for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Pandey, Adv. ...for respondent No. 5 Mr. C.A. Sundaram

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

1 and 3. Therefore, both the grounds are dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.4 being general in nature, does not require adjudication.” 5. Mr. Raj Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant states that the above ‘concession’ by his counterpart before the ITAT was a mistake. This Court finds that no application was filed by the Appellant 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 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

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 of service

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.

Section 171 of the M.V. Act. Under the above observation, the award passed by the learned tribunal requires modification. Calculation of compensation 1. Annual Income :Rs. 1,88,558/- 2. Add: 25% Future Prospects :Rs. 47,139/- :Rs. 2,35,697/- 3. Less:1/3rd deduction :Rs.78,565/- :Rs. 1,57,132/- 4. Multiplier 13 :Rs.20,42,716/- (Rs.1

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

13,662 square feet land comprised in survey No.478/ 3-B of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, Dindigul district. Another land in the same property consisting an area of 14.60 cents land equivalent to 63,366 square feet land comprised in survey No. 478/3 B of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, Dindigul district and 7 cents land comprised in Survey

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

13 discretion to either compensate the employee in lieu of the stipulated notice period or recover the commensurate sum thereof from the employee. Additionally, the employer is vested with the unilateral authority to dispense with the services of the employee even prior to the expiry of the prescribed notice period. 33. At this juncture, it is pertinent to first examine

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