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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person whose name is entered in the Register of Members or the beneficial owner in the records of the depository. It is submitted that in the instant case even by the respondent’s own showing since the estate does not hold or even control directly

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

2. This writ appeal, filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed in W.P. No.13953/2020 (T-IT). 3. The facts, in brief, are that, the respondent–assessee, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007–08. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

2,72,68,740/- 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

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

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 71, 72 & 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 63 of the Rules:- Time table

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2. These appeals assail the order passed by the ITAT, whereby the ITAT has held that the AO has relied on the statement of third persons recorded behind the back of the assessee and without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI PAWAN GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2. These appeals assail the order passed by the ITAT, whereby the ITAT has held that the AO has relied on the statement of third persons recorded behind the back of the assessee and without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2. These appeals assail the order passed by the ITAT, whereby the ITAT has held that the AO has relied on the statement of third persons recorded behind the back of the assessee and without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed

MANDA BUILDERS vs. I.T.O.WARD-21,BIKANER

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

2 of 5 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal is justified in confirming the addition made u/S.68 of the Act particularly when the books of accounts maintained in day to day course of business does not show any unexplained cash credit? 4. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Section

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

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

Section 138 satisfied, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused, sentenced her to nine months simple imprisonment, directed payment of Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation within one month and in default, imposed a further two months simple imprisonment. Judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi:- 6.In Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2017, the appellant raised grounds

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

Section 17 mandates that transfer of immovable property by means of a release deed require registration. 62. This Court has dealt with a case of unregistered release deed in Ammamuthu Ammal vs Devaraj, reported in 2011(5) MLJ 15 (Madras) and the relevant portion is extracted as follows: “If the recitals in the document do display and demonstrate, express

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) are filed against the orders dated [2025:RJ-JP:13935-DB] (2 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] 31.07.2008 and 20.06.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity ‘the tribunal’). 3. On 01.12.2008 and 18.11.2009, the appeals were admitted on following substantial questions

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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent

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. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural