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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

6), sub-section (7) also becomes applicable. It is not in dispute that the order of the Tribunal was received on or before 01.06.2016. 15. A combined reading of sub-sections (7) and (9) of Section 153 reveals an apparent contradiction and gives rise to ambiguity. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that where

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

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 68 of the Rules which required

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 98 and Order 47 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Board of Directors of companies can pass resolutions by majority because Regulations 68 of Schedule 1

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Section 98 and Order 47 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Board of Directors of companies can pass resolutions by majority because Regulations 68 of Schedule 1

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

6) [ITA-44/2025] HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 24/03/2026 1. Heard. 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

6) [ITA-44/2025] HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 24/03/2026 1. Heard. 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

6) [ITA-44/2025] HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 24/03/2026 1. Heard. 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. KAJAL CHHABRA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

68 of the said Act on the taxable service provided to the exporter for export of goods shall not be eligible to claim rebate under this notification; (c) the manufacturer-exporter, who is registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, shall file a claim for rebate of service

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

68 of the Act has any application?” 3. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent (Department) points out that as regards the issue concerning Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), the Assessee should be precluded from urging its since before the ITAT, he did not press it. He points out that

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

1. These two appeals are decided by this order as the facts and issue involved are similar. 2. These appeals under 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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SAINI

The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (For Short The "Itat") In The Online Portal Via E-Filing Mode, Against The Order Dated 27.7.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi {For Short The "Cit (Appeals)"}. However, Thereafter, He Was Not

1. This tax appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) was admitted for hearing on 22.4.2025 by formulating the following substantial question of law: - ““Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal barred by limitation holding that the appellant assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay

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

1, Article 4(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

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