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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

68,740/- The other additions made in the assessment order under head Royalty on Handsets of Rs.78,53,40,000/- and Royalty on Infrastructure Equipments of Rs 39,04,76,313/- are also being reduced for giving statistical effect to the order of hon'ble ITAT. Net Taxable Income Rs. 5,32,88,790/- Appeal effect given as above

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

2. Application, total 11 in number, not received in the application proforma under Rule 64 of Rules:- Opposite party 14, 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

2. This writ appeal, filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed in W.P. No.13953/2020 (T-IT). 3. The facts, in brief, are that, the respondent–assessee, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007–08. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

14 of SRA, determinable contracts are statutorily exempted from specific performance. 43. Likewise, in Satya Narain Garg v. DCM Ltd. 24 and in GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. v. Tarun Bhargava25, this Court reiterated that in cases involving private employment, the scope of judicial review is limited, and the remedies are governed solely by contract law principles

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 on 10-9-1969 77. (1965) 2

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

14 March 2017. Since the decision in the instant appeals hinges on the interpretation of Section 149 besides the Notification dated 29 June 2012, it would be relevant to reproduce both: "Section 149- Amendment of documents.-Save as otherwise provided in section 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

2 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] 31.07.2008 and 20.06.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity ‘the tribunal’). 3. On 01.12.2008 and 18.11.2009, the appeals were admitted on following substantial questions of law for assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively:- “Whether the ITAT was justified in having reveresed the finding of the CIT (Appeals

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

2)(a) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter “IT Rules 2021”), as whenever any complaint is made by any user or victim, the acknowledgment is issued to said user/victim, within 24 hours and the complaint is disposed of within 15 days from the date of its receipt. He further submits that

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.

14,522/- together with @ 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application as compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. The claimants also preferred one separate cross appeal being COT No.105 of 2019 against

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 40/2007 DHARAM VEER .....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 Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates

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