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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

13 and 4608/Del/Del/11 which is a combined order for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2008-09. The income of the assessee is recalculated u/s 254 as under:- Income assessed u/s 143(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

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

3) the rebate shall be claimed in the following manner, namely:- (a) rebate may be claimed on the service tax actually paid on any specified service on the basis of duly certified documents; (b) the person liable to pay service tax under section 68 of the said Act on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

68 of the IT Act was not warranted when the accounts were maintained properly and formed part of the records. 9. The Court is unable to agree with the above submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that the additions were made mechanically. At every stage the AO, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have granted the Appellant some relief

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

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 application of the opposite party nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Apart from this, time table is not annexed with any other application. 13 4. Such

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

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

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 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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

3 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 43/2007 BED RAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

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