MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

28 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 996/2008 RAJENDER PRASHAD & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, 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. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

28 “17. The wrong within the meaning of Section 19 of the CPC in anaction for defamation is done by the publication. The defendants areconfusing publication in the sense of printing, with publication as inthe case of libel. The publication in the sense of a libel is not themechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of communicationof

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. SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL HUF

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

28 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 4/2021 and 5/2021 Page 27 of 31 the statutory scheme and the legitimacy of State action under it depends upon scrupulous adherence to these procedural requirements. 67. Equally well-established is the rule of statutory interpretation that when a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be performed in a specified manner

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

28. AIR 1958 SC 538 29. AIR 1960 SC 457 30. AIR 1989 SC 2105 31. (2010) 5 SCC 538 32. (2011) 5 SCC 29 33. (1996) 10 SCC 665 34. AIR 1965 SC 745 35. AIR 1969 Guj 74 36. (2013) 9 SCC 659 37. (1986) 2 SCC 68 38. AIR 1955 SC 549 2 39. ILR 1975 Delhi

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

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

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

28. The suit properties consist of 3 items, namely, (i) 5 cents land comprised in survey No.478/2 of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, (ii) 7 cents land comprised in survey No.478/2 of Seelappadi village of Dindigul taluk, and (iii) 1 acre 46 cents land comprised in survey No.478/3B of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk. 29. Deed of partnership firm of M.M.P.M. Syed