THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

15 SCC 785, the Tribunal has held that there is a serious flaw, which makes the order a nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The Rajsthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sanjay Chhabra (D.B. ITA No.22/2021) noted that prejudice is caused to assessee when material used against him is not provided

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

15. A combined reading of sub-sections (7) and (9) of Section 153 reveals an apparent contradiction and gives rise to ambiguity. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that where a statutory provision suffers from ambiguity, the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment may be referred to as an external aid to ascertain

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

68 of the Act has any application?” 3. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent (Department) points out that as regards the issue concerning Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), the Assessee should be precluded from urging its since before the ITAT, he did not press it. He points out that

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

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 the application of the opposite party nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Apart from this, time table

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person whose name is entered in the Register of Members or the beneficial owner in the records of the depository. It is submitted that in the instant case even by the respondent’s own showing since the estate does not hold or even control directly

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person whose name is entered in the Register of Members or the beneficial owner in the records of the depository. It is submitted that in the instant case even by the respondent’s own showing since the estate does not hold or even control directly

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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

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 (PIL) No. 90 of 2010 dated

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. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Section 19 of the CPC is so interpreted, the purpose thereof would bedefeated. Similarly, State of Meghalaya & Ors v Jyotsna Das AIR17 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1049.231991 Gauhati 96 also held that wrong done includes and covers theeffect of the act. The counsel for the defendants has relieduponRashtriya Mahila Kosh v The Dale View 2007 IV AD (Delhi

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

15 of 171 + LA.APP. 1235/2008, CM APPL. 6801/2017 & 16070/2024 SURYA PRAKASH & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UOI & 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. Mr. Kunal Sharma

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL HUF

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

15 of 31 statute. Consequently, the learned Appellate Tribunal‟s further conclusions based on this mis-interpretation, including its understanding of the amended provisions of the PMLA, are also erroneous. 43. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Impugned Judgment are the resultant conclusions based on the finding of the learned Appellate Tribunal that Section 8(3) prescribes a time

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

68,000/-. In assessment year 2013–2014 (Ex.D2) it was only Rs. 3,10,000/-. The first Appellate Court erred in paragraph no.12 of its judgment in holding that the complainant was entitled to submit “altered” returns for earlier assessment years by paying tax with interest and penalty. There is no case for altered returns and that finding should have

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

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

Section 17 mandates that transfer of immovable property by means of a release deed require registration. 62. This Court has dealt with a case of unregistered release deed in Ammamuthu Ammal vs Devaraj, reported in 2011(5) MLJ 15 (Madras) and the relevant portion is extracted as follows: “If the recitals in the document do display and demonstrate, express

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