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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections 7(6), 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

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections 7(6), 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

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

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

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

ii) However, the details of properties in which the tannery processing unit as well as export unit situated either at the head office at Mugamadiapuram, Dindigul or at the branch office at 27, Kattur, Sadayappan street, Periyamet, Chennai was not detailed in the aforesaid partnership deed. (iii) It is crystal clear that, the share capital of the said partnership firm

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