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

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

21. In Share Medical Care v. Union of India,8 the Supreme Court observed that even if an applicant claims exemption under category 2 of an exemption notification which was granted it would not mean that the applicant cannot later claim exemption under category 3 of the exemption notification after seeking cancellation of exemption granted under category 2. The Supreme

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

5. Affidavits in which date has not been mentioned by the Notary:- Opposite party nos. 29, 43, 44, 45, 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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

5 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 1143/2008 UOI & ANR. .....Appellants 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 for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini

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 vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

5 entitling him to seek a redressal for the injuries caused to his reputation and livelihood. 12. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in SP Sharma v. IFCI Ltd.1, Himanshu Bhatt v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation2, Shobhna Bhartia v. State of NCT of Delhi3, and the decision of the Court of England and Wales

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

21 years, all of them residing at Dindigul. The aforesaid partners agreed to carry on leather business in partnership under the firm, name and style of M.M.P.M. Syed Mohammed. The said partnership business was for the purpose of buying and selling of hides and skins on commission basis and tanning. The partnership business was resolved to be carried

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

5. The above discussion would show that insofar as the said SoP for sharing information with LEAs is concerned, the IBA has to ensure the implementation of the same by the banks, which has not yet been done. 6. The banks contend today that the SoP is still not a binding document. Mr. Gupta, at this stage, submits that