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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

40 and 42 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 were referred to. Section 5 of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and Section 16 of the State Act were also referred to. It is submitted that PDB during her lifetime did not have any right of nomination of any Member of the managing committees to the societies

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

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 as above

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

40, 43, 44, 45, 53, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 85. 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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

40. Upon such confirmation through a written order, the attachment, under Section 8(3)(a): (a) by virtue of the first part, continues during investigation for a period not exceeding ninety days; OR (b) by virtue of the second part, continues during the pendency of proceedings relating to any offence under the PMLA (in India). 41. It is thus

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 on 10-9-1969 77. (1965) 2 Mys L J 40

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR-II vs. M/S VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SAMEER JAIN

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “ the Act”) mandates that “ just compensation” should be paid to the claimants. Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in the award of “just compensation” would not be in accordance with the Act. The word “ just” is of a very wide amplitude. The courts must interpret

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.

Bench: The Learned Tribunal On The Ground That Their Predecessor, Namely, Ananta Chakraborty Died In A Road Traffic Accident Due To Rash & Negligent Driving Of The Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Duly Insured Under Policy Of The Insurance Company.

40-50 years. So, the future prospects would be 25% to his establish income. The claimants are also entitled to get the general damages of Rs. 70,000/- instead of Rs.55,000/-. Furthermore, the award shall carry @ 6% per annum simple interest according to the provision of Section 171 of the M.V. Act. Under the above observation, the award

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

40. In J. Tiwari v. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir21, the Supreme Court followed the ratio of Vaish Degree College. The Court held that where an employment contract is terminable by notice, and the employer has acted in breach of such contractual terms, the only available relief is damages, not reinstatement or continuation of service. Importantly, the Court also emphasized that

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

68 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.238 OF 2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: SHRI. JOSE THOMAS PADINJAREVEETTIL, PUTHENVEEDU, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA -691 523. BY ADV.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR (SR.) BY ADV.SRI.R.SREEJITH BY ADV.SMT.TELMA

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

40 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. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 576/2009 & CM APPL. 14065/2015 NARENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

40 of 241 implement orders passed by Indian Courts/Authorities. However, a number of DNRs have either not responded to MEITY or have belatedly refused to comply with the orders passed by this Court. • The second set of DNRs which operate in India are (.in) DNRs. In so far as (.in) DNRs are concerned, they are stated to have appointed Grievance

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

40. Description of A scheduled property (Exhibit B9): Item No.1: 1 acre 46 cents land comprised in survey number 478/3B of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, Dindigul district. Item No.2: 7 cents land comprised in survey number 478/2A of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, Dindigul district. Total area 1 acre 53 cents land comprised in survey numbers 478/2A and 478/3B of Seelappadi