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

32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number 52/2011- Service Tax, dated the 30th December, 2011, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 945(E), dated

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

32 of 300 Private Limited. The Punjab Produce & Trading Company Private Limited and Punjab Produce Holdings Limited as on 10th April, 2019 is restored ; o. Early hearing of G.A. No. 1 of 2020 arising out of A.P.O. 92 of 2020 for grant of stay of the order dated 18th September, 2020 (to the extent challenged appeal). p. Ad interim order

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

32 of 300 Private Limited. The Punjab Produce & Trading Company Private Limited and Punjab Produce Holdings Limited as on 10th April, 2019 is restored ; o. Early hearing of G.A. No. 1 of 2020 arising out of A.P.O. 92 of 2020 for grant of stay of the order dated 18th September, 2020 (to the extent challenged appeal). p. Ad interim order

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

1)(c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section

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

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

32. Partnership deed bearing document No.2149 of 1983 of Nagal Nayakanpatti Dindigul sub-registry dated 09.11.1983 (Exhibit A2): On 09.11.1983, the three sons of Mapilai Meera Mohaideen Rauther 40/85 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.83 of 2020 Sayabu, namely, Syed Mohammed, Mohamed Abdullah and Jamalia Syed Yaseen, executed a partition deed bearing document No.2149 of 1983 of Nagal Nayakanpatti, Dindigul

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

ii) publication of such statement to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and (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