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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

68 ; f. Ad interim order in terms of prayers above ; (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 28 of 300 g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. GA/4/2021 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Injunction

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

43. AIR 1958 SC 956 44. (2018) 6 SCC 363 45. (2003) 5 SCC 298 46. (2003) 4 SCC 399 47. 1993 Supp (1) 96 (II) 48. (1995) 5

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

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 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 complies with all the conditions. “ The STAT, thereafter, observed that the Regional Transport Authority

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. KAJAL CHHABRA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

5. The impugned orders dated 24 February 2020 passed by learned CESTAT are assailed by the appellant by way of present appeals. The following questions of law were framed in the instant appeals on 22 September 2021:- "I. Whether the learned Tribunal did not err in holding that the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 will

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

5 entitling him to seek a redressal for the injuries caused to his reputation and livelihood. 12. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in SP Sharma v. IFCI Ltd.1, Himanshu Bhatt v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation2, Shobhna Bhartia v. State of NCT of Delhi3, and the decision of the Court of England and Wales

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

5 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 1143/2008 UOI & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini

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

43. Sale deed bearing document No.1448 of 2011 of Dindigul Joint I Sub Registry (Exhibit C1): On 29.04.2011, Mapillai Meera Mohaideen along with his daughters, namely M. Sajitha Sultana, M. Sumaiya Sajitha, M. Suhaina Anwari and M. Sarbasarine executed a sale deed for a valid consideration of Rs. 8,79,100/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Hundred only

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

5. The above discussion would show that insofar as the said SoP for sharing information with LEAs is concerned, the IBA has to ensure the implementation of the same by the banks, which has not yet been done. 6. The banks contend today that the SoP is still not a binding document. Mr. Gupta, at this stage, submits that