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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

36, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 50, 60, 63, 64, 65, 70, 71, 76, 78, 79, 93. 5. Affidavits in which date has not been mentioned by the Notary:- Opposite party nos. 29, 43, 44, 45, 45, 70, 73, 81. 6. Such application in which route is not mentioned:- Opposite Party No. 53. In this way, only applications

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

36. (2013) 9 SCC 659 37. (1986) 2 SCC 68 38. AIR 1955 SC 549 2 39. ILR 1975 Delhi 634 40. AIR 1957 SC 699 41. AIR 1958 SC 468 42. AIR 1955 SC 540 43. AIR 1958 SC 956 44. (2018) 6 SCC 363 45. (2003) 5 SCC 298 46. (2003) 4 SCC 399 47. 1993 Supp

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

36. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce certain paragraphs from the Impugned Judgment, which will be referred to and discussed subsequently, and which read as follows: “24.Scheme of Section 8(3) of PMLA a) Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA, originally provided that confirmation of attachment by Adjudicating Authority would continue during the pendency

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

36. Relying upon the decisions in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service17, Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. v. Stroh Brewery Co.18, and Beoworld Pvt. Ltd. v. Bang & Olufsen Expansion 19, the Court reaffirmed that private commercial agreements are presumed to be terminable unless explicitly rendered irrevocable. Even where the agreement permits termination only upon the occurrence of certain events

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

36 of 171 Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar

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

36 Mad.564 and Narayana v. Rama, 1915 I.L.R. 38 Mad., 396 and that of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in the case of Nayakammal v. Munnaswamy Mudaliar. 1924 (20) L.W. 222. Sathasiva Iyer. J. in the case of Kandasamy referred to the "ordinary course of conduct of Indians in this presidency" and held that attestation must be treated prima facie