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 (1

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

1) and 340 of the Companies Act and Regulations 7 and 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Tradings) Regulations, 2015 were also referred to for the obligations of the promoters, (iii) the Companies Act and the SEBI Regulations do not provide any right to the promoters, except certain limited exemption as contained in Section

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 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

iii) It is crystal clear that, the share capital of the said partnership firm was Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in cash alone. Thus, in terms of M. M. P. M. Syed Mohammed, tanners and exporters partnership deed, all the five partners together conducted tanning and exporting business, dealing in hides and skins, buying and selling on commission

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

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