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

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

56. From the above extract, it is evident that the authorised officer has passed a cryptic freezing order under Section 17(1A) solely on the basis of suspicion. No material has been placed before us to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sub- sections (1) and (1A) of Section 17 of the PMLA and of Rules

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

56. Further, on 14th September, 2022, a status report was filed by MeitY informing the Court of the steps taken pursuant to the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 3rd August, 2022. The Court was informed that MeitY has prepared a questionnaire which has been shared with all the stakeholders and meetings have also been held with

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

56 of 171 Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, 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. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

56. Civil defamation, though uncodified, in the Indian context is governed by common law principles derived from the English jurisprudence. It refers to a tortious wrong whereby a person makes a false imputation having the tendency to diminish another‟s reputation in the estimation of right-minded members of society. The essential constituents of civil defamation may be summarised

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

56. In yet another case, the Honorable Division Bench of this court in the case of K. A. Selvanachi and another versus Dr. S.R. Shekar and another reported in 2003(1) CTC 745, the concept of estoppel by attestation has been dealt with and the relevant portion to this case is extracted as follows: “7. Attestation of a document does