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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

25 of 300 2019, G.A. No. 1786 of 2019, G.A. No. 1845 of 2019, G.A. No. 1005 of 2020, G. A. No. 1009 of 2020 and G.A. No. 1121 of 2020 in T.S. No. 6 of 2004 [Harsh Vardhan Lodha & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Newar & Ors.], save and except to the extent mentioned in paragraph 59 hereof ; c. Leave

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 53, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 85. 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

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

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

25 of 31 records and/ or other evidence. This is also in consonance with the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgement reads as under: “45. Secondly, the fact that Section 104(1) does not explicitly require a Customs Officer to have “material in their possession” does

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.

Section 171 of the M.V. Act. Under the above observation, the award passed by the learned tribunal requires modification. Calculation of compensation 1. Annual Income :Rs. 1,88,558/- 2. Add: 25% Future Prospects :Rs. 47,139/- :Rs. 2,35,697/- 3. Less:1/3rd deduction :Rs.78,565/- :Rs. 1,57,132/- 4. Multiplier 13 :Rs.20,42,716/- (Rs.1

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. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

25 of 241 and to take swift action on the movements of fraudulently reported amounts and mark lien or freeze the same within the financial channels by the Law Enforcement agencies. The Law Enforcement Agencies of all States/UTs take necessary actions on the complaints received online on the portal as per law. l4C, Ministry of Home Affairs has no intervention

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

25 of 171 versus UOI & ORS .....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. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 876/2008 RISHAL SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S .....Appellant Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradeep Tokas, Advocates. versus

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

25 freedom of speech and expression. Thus, while dealing with defamation, the Court always treads a cautious path. 56. Civil defamation, though uncodified, in the Indian context is governed by common law principles derived from the English jurisprudence. It refers to a tortious wrong whereby a person makes a false imputation having the tendency to diminish another‟s reputation

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

25,320 square meters comprised in Survey No. 78 / 3 B of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, Dindigul district. A careful reading of the recitals of the various documents discussed supra would throw light on the facts in issue in this case. Original indenture of partnership which was entered into between the three sons of Mappillai Meera Mohaideen Rauther Sayabu, namely

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SAMEER JAIN

25 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - Ku. Nileshwari Dahariya D/o Shri Hemant Kumar Dahariya, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants Versus 1 - Purno Kashyap S/o Baisakhu Kashyap, R/o Betrkhuti Para, Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, District Bastar,Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.17 G A 1583) 2 - Smt. Anita