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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

42. Accordingly, to the extent that the learned Appellate Tribunal has held that the investigation must be completed within ninety days, failing which the attachment would lapse, we find such an interpretation to be inconsistent with the express wording of the Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:05:28 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 4/2021

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

42, 63, 66. 3. Number of the time tables annexed with the applications as per Sections 71, 72 & 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 63 of the Rules:- Time table is enclosed with the application of the opposite party nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Apart from this, time table is not annexed with any other application

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

42 ITR 49) that if the income from a source falls within a specific head, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head. (See also CIT v. Chugandas and Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC). (14) Section 14 of the Income

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

68]), so long as it does not seek to overrule it. The power to make retrospective legislation enables the legislature to validate prior executive and legislative Acts retrospectively, after curing the defects that led to their invalidation, and thus make ineffective judgments of competent courts declaring the invalidity.(Bakhtawar Trust[45]). 42 (iv) WHAT IS A VALIDATING ACT, AND WHEN

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Section 69A of the IT Act for blocking of the non-compliant DNR. Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.01.2026 18:27:10 Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 82/2020 Page 42 of 241 However, a concern was also expressed to the effect that various Registrants could be inconvenienced if the website/URL of the non- compliant DNR is blocked

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.

Section 171 of the M.V. Act. Under the above observation, the award passed by the learned tribunal requires modification. Calculation of compensation 1. Annual Income :Rs. 1,88,558/- 2. Add: 25% Future Prospects :Rs. 47,139/- :Rs. 2,35,697/- 3. Less:1/3rd deduction :Rs.78,565/- :Rs. 1,57,132/- 4. Multiplier 13 :Rs.20,42,716/- (Rs.1

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

42. This Court in L.M. Khosla v. Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. 23 , relying on the decisions in S.S. Shetty, Vaish Degree College, and Binny, summarised the applicable legal principles holding inter alia that- (i) employment contracts of a private nature do not attract public law remedies; (ii) where a contract provides

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

42 of 171 Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harpreeet Singh Chadha, Advocates for DDA 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, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 647/2009, CM APPL. 8877-79/2025 MEHAR CHAND & ORS .....Appellants

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

42 cents land comprised in survey number 478 of 3 B of Seelappadi village, Dindigul taluk, Dindigul district, was allotted to S. Mohammed Hanifa in D-scheduled property. One Z. Noorjahan, daughter of Syed Mohammed and S.Asia beevi, wife of Syed Mohammed, were allotted with Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SAMEER JAIN

42 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Mithlesh Kumar Dahariya S/o Shri Hemant Kumar Dahariya, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - Ku. Nileshwari Dahariya D/o Shri Hemant Kumar Dahariya, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants Versus 1 - Purno Kashyap S/o Baisakhu Kashyap