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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

68 ; f. Ad interim order in terms of prayers above ; (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 28 of 300 g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. GA/4/2021 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Injunction

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

68 ; f. Ad interim order in terms of prayers above ; (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 28 of 300 g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. GA/4/2021 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Injunction

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

45, 70, 73, 81. 6. Such application in which route is not mentioned:- Opposite Party No. 53. In this way, only applications 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 complies with all the conditions. “ The STAT, thereafter, observed that the Regional Transport Authority had, in its meeting dated 27.12.2008, ignored the provisions of Section 70, 71, 72 and Rule 68

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

45 56. (2005) 5 SCC 91 57. (2016) 11 SCC 356 58. 2003 5 SCC 568 59. (2012) 1 SCC 619 60. (2014) 12 SCC 696 61. (2014) 4 SCC 434 62. AIR 1961 SC 1457 63. (2004) 1 SCC 712) 64. AIR 1944 FC 86 65. 2

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

2,68,000/-. 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR-II vs. M/S VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SAMEER JAIN

45 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Smt. Kanti Dahariya W/o Shri Hemant Kumar Dahariya, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Mithlesh Kumar Dahariya S/o Shri Hemant Kumar Dahariya, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - Ku. Nileshwari Dahariya D/o Shri Hemant Kumar

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

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

45. On 21.06.1976, the sons of Mappillai Meera Mohaideen Rauther Sayabu, namely, M. M. P. M. Syed Mohammed, M. M. P. M. Mohammed 53/85 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.83 of 2020 Abdullah and M. M. P. M. Jamalia Syed Yaseen together purchased the suit properties from one M. M. Mohammed Hanifa for a valid consideration

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

2), p. 559 para 1040).” 46. An upshot of the aforementioned precedents indicates that normally, in the domain of private employment governed exclusively by a contract, the consequence of wrongful termination is determined by the character of the agreement itself. Such agreements, founded on mutual volition, fall outside the scope of judicial enforcement. 47. Consequently, even if the termination