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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

8 of 20 II. Whether in view of the fact that the respondent could not produce any document to show that taxable services on which service tax has been allegedly paid by the respondent, were actually received by it and were further used for the export of goods, could the application of the respondent seeking amendment in the shipping bills

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

8 of 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

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

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 TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: SHRI. JOSE THOMAS PADINJAREVEETTIL, PUTHENVEEDU, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA -691 523. BY ADV.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR (SR.) BY ADV.SRI.R.SREEJITH BY ADV.SMT.TELMA

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

8. Mr. Raj Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant - Assessee submitted that even if the explanation offered by the Appellant was not satisfactory the authorities should have applied their discretion properly and ought not to have made the addition mechanically. He further submitted that the addition was made on surmises and conjectures despite the Appellant having given a satisfactory explanation

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

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 64 of Rules:- Opposite party

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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

8(1) of the settlement. There was no reference to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the statement of objects and reasons nor in the non-obstante clause in Section 3 of the 1976 Act. The statement of objects and reasons disclosed that the purpose of the 1976 Act was to undo

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

13 of 171 Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Ms. Meghna, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 412/2007 GIRIRAJ & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola

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. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

8 State of Andhra Pradesh 14 , and Smt. Dr. Nagarathinam v. M. Kalirajan15. 21. I have heard the plaintiff in person, learned counsel appearing for the defendant, and have perused the record. 22. Vide order dated 26.07.2022, the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the service (employment) of the plaintiff was wrongly terminated by the defendant in violation

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

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