MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

26 of 300 Prayer a. Decisions of the APL Committee dated 23rd October, 2020 and 9th November, 2020 and any other similar decision be set aside ; b. Injunction restraining the APL Committee from giving any effect or further effect to the decisions of the 2 of the APL Committee members dated 23rd October, 2020 and 9th November

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

26 of 300 Prayer a. Decisions of the APL Committee dated 23rd October, 2020 and 9th November, 2020 and any other similar decision be set aside ; b. Injunction restraining the APL Committee from giving any effect or further effect to the decisions of the 2 of the APL Committee members dated 23rd October, 2020 and 9th November

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

68 of the said Act on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export of goods shall not be eligible to claim rebate under this notification; (c) the manufacturer-exporter, who is registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, shall file a claim for rebate of service

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

26, for the purpose of carrying on business dealing in hides and skins on commission basis in partnership under the name and style of M.M.P.M. Syed Mohammed, with effect from 01.04.1983 by taking over all the assets and liabilities of the old firm at book value as at 31.03.1983. The factum of the execution of a release deed from partnership

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

iii) identifiability, i.e., the statement must refer to the plaintiff either expressly or by implication (iv) Absence of a valid defence such as justification, truth, or privilege. 57. The first essential of civil defamation is the existence of a defamatory statement. The statement must be such that it tends to expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

1, Article 4(5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights