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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

45 56. (2005) 5 SCC 91 57. (2016) 11 SCC 356 58. 2003 5 SCC 568 59. (2012) 1 SCC

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. HARISH JAIN

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 21.07.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri Crl.R.C.(Md)No.81 Of 2023 & Crl.M.P.(Md)No.1047 Of 2023 Prabavathi

5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)No.81 of 2023 cheque readily discloses material alterations, both in words and figures. Both the Courts below overlooked that the complainant and the accused’s son had colluded and the cheque was stolen from the accused’s house, her signature was forged and she never received any legal notice on 25.09.2013. They

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 JAIPUR-II vs. M/S VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SAMEER JAIN

45 Years R/o Village Chachhanpairi, P.S. Sejbahar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Smt. Kanti Dahariya W/o Shri Hemant Kumar Dahariya, Aged About 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

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

45. On 21.06.1976, the sons of Mappillai Meera Mohaideen Rauther Sayabu, namely, M. M. P. M. Syed Mohammed, M. M. P. M. Mohammed 53/85 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)No.83 of 2020 Abdullah and M. M. P. M. Jamalia Syed Yaseen together purchased the suit properties from one M. M. Mohammed Hanifa for a valid consideration

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

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