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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

32. At the outset, it is clarified that the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent has not raised any contention regarding whether, after the freezing of property under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA, the mandatory requirements of Section 20 of the PMLA were duly complied with prior to the passing of the order under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S K.S. CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

2,72,68,740/- The other additions made in the assessment order under head Royalty on Handsets of Rs.78,53,40,000/- and Royalty on Infrastructure Equipments of Rs 39,04,76,313/- are also being reduced for giving statistical effect to the order of hon'ble ITAT. Net Taxable Income Rs. 5,32,88,790/- Appeal effect given

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

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 of the time tables annexed with the applications as per Sections 71, 72 & 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 63 of the Rules:- Time table

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

32 of 241 46. In addition to the above, Mr. Susmit Pushkar, ld. Counsel appearing for NPCI was directed to file an affidavit in respect of the circular dated 30th December, 2024 addressing the measures to be taken by NPCI for achieving the deadline mentioned in the said circular. It was also directed that NPCI shall also address the process

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 40/2007 DHARAM VEER .....Appellant Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, 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. 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

2), p. 559 para 1040).” 46. An upshot of the aforementioned precedents indicates that normally, in the domain of private employment governed exclusively by a contract, the consequence of wrongful termination is determined by the character of the agreement itself. Such agreements, founded on mutual volition, fall outside the scope of judicial enforcement. 47. Consequently, even if the termination