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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

58. 2003 5 SCC 568 59. (2012) 1 SCC 619 60. (2014) 12 SCC 696 61. (2014) 4 SCC 434 62. AIR 1961 SC 1457 63. (2004) 1 SCC 712) 64. AIR 1944 FC 86 65. 2 L. Ed. 276 66. (1997) 8 SCC 522 67. (2014) 4 SCC 583 68

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

58. The freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 themselves do not disclose any such reason to believe, nor do they refer to any record from which such a conclusion could be inferred. On the contrary, the order records that “it is suspected that amount involved in money laundering are lying in the above mentioned bank account”. 59. In our considered view

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

58 of 171 and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DDA. + LA.APP. 13/2012 BUDHAN DECD THRU LRS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

58. In respect of the directions passed on 14th September, 2022, qua appointment of Grievance Officers by the DNRs, a status report was filed by MeitY, wherein it was recorded as under: “As of today, MeitY does not have powers to take action against non-compliant domain name registrars. On the order of the Hon’ble Court, action on blocking

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

58. The second requirement is publication, which is the act of communicating the defamatory content to at least one person other than the person defamed. It is well established that communication of the fact to a third party is indispensable for a successful civil action. If the statement is made directly and solely to the plaintiff, the tort of defamation

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

58. Had the release deed executed by M. M. P. M. Mohammed Abdullah and M. M. P. M. Jamalia Syed Yaseen marked as Exhibit B-3 and B-4 on 01.04.1993 had been with respect to the suit scheduled properties, then the aforesaid brothers, namely, Syed Mohammed Abdullah and Jamalia Syed Yaseen would not have executed a registered partition deed