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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 72 of 300 Act which deal with liabilities of promoters. Sections 168(3), 257(3), 284(10, 300(1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 72 of 300 Act which deal with liabilities of promoters. Sections 168(3), 257(3), 284(10, 300(1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition

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

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

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

35. Deed of partnership dated 01.04.1983 (Exhibit B3 and Exhibit B4): On 01.04.1983, a deed of partnership was executed between M.M.P.M.Syed Mohamed, son of Mapillai Meera Mohaideen Rauther Sayabu, aged about 57, S.Mapillai Meera Mohaideen, son of M.M.P.M.Syed Mohammed, aged about 33 and S.Mohammed Hanifa, son of M.M.P.M.Syed Mohammed, aged about 26, for the purpose of carrying on business dealing

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

1 which contains the indicative reference list of key words not to be allowed to individuals. The said list also contains names/marks of well known brands or companies which cannot be permitted to be registered as IDs of account holders without the permission of the said entity/brand holder. Further, the said list also Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

35. Recently, this Court in Gaurav Rajgaria v Maruti Suzuki India Limited16 held that a contract which, by its nature or explicit terms, allows termination by either party, whether with or without assigning reasons, is considered to be determinable. The Court held that such a determinable contract is not specifically enforceable under Section