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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

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 had, in its meeting dated 27.12.2008, ignored the provisions of Section 70, 71, 72 and Rule

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

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

44 of 171 + LA.APP. 263/2010 & CM APPL. 14068/2015 RAMESH & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents 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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

44. Publication of the defamatory statement is an essential element of thecause of action in a suit for damages for defamation. The injury caused by alibel arises from the effect produced upon its readers. Publication means theact of making the defamatory statement known to any person or personsother than the plaintiff himself (see Salmond on Torts, page-215, FourteenthEdition

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

44. Sale deed bearing document No.1449 of 2011, dated 29.04.2011(Exhibit B25) : On 29.04.2011, S. Mappillai Meera Mohaideen along with his daughters namely M. Suhaina Anwari, M. Sajitha Sultana, M. Sumaiya Sahitha and M. Sarbasirin together executed a sale deed for a valid consideration of Rs. 9,64,440/- in favour of one Thirumathi R. Selvi, wife of K. Rathinam

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

68,294/- to M/s. Dugar Photofilms Limited (for short ‘DPFL’), of [2025:RJ-JP:13935-DB] (3 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] Rs.28,62,084/- to M/s. Tetenal India Limited and Rs.2,01,668/- to M/s. Mooji Tulsidas & Co. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant took the stand that the advances were in normal course of business