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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

47. In light of the above authoritative pronouncement, we are of the opinion that the said issue stands concluded. 48. The continuation of attachment under Section 8(3)(a) is not dependent upon the property holder being named as an accused. The statutory requirement is satisfied if, among other things, proceedings relating to an offence under the PMLA

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

47. 1993 Supp (1) 96 (II) 48. (1995) 5 SCC 96 49. (1987) 1 SCC 362 50. (1978) 2 SCC 50 51. (1970) 2 SCC 280 52. (1969) 2

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

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 SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

v) If a specific link could be provided by the CGPTDM, covering a list of well-known marks, maintained by the Registrar of the Trademarks, or declared by any Court of law, which can then be used for expedited blocking of domain names consisting of such marks; (vi) If there can be any agency that can be identified in India

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

v. Bal Ram & Anr2 to submit that if the nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v

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

47. The said release deed was with respect to the partnership firm which was run in the name and style of M. M. P. M. Syed Mohammed, dealing in hides and skins, buying and selling on commission basis, etc., at No. 27, Kattur, Sadaipan street, Periyamet, Madras-600003. For the purpose of the said release deed, the accounts