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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68 was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961, only to provide statutory recognition to a principle which had been clearly adumbrated in judicial decisions.” 31. The respondent herein is a private limited company. It is not the case of the respondent that the directors or persons behind the companies making the investment in their shares were related

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68 was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961, only to provide statutory recognition to a principle which had been clearly adumbrated in judicial decisions.” 31. The respondent herein is a private limited company. It is not the case of the respondent that the directors or persons behind the companies making the investment in their shares were related

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68 was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961, only to provide statutory recognition to a principle which had been clearly adumbrated in judicial decisions.” 31. The respondent herein is a private limited company. It is not the case of the respondent that the directors or persons behind the companies making the investment in their shares were related

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

7 of 20 16. In the instant case, the ground which weighed with the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS for non- considering the prayer of the appellant was that earlier, exemption was sought under category 2 of exemption notification, not under category 3 of exemption notification and exemption under category 2 was withdrawn. This is hardly a ground sustainable

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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

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

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

7 Act; a bare perusal of the order of the STAT would reveal the casual manner in which the Regional Transport Authority had granted permits, even though the applicants had failed to furnish the required information in the application forms submitted by them; and, since the order of the STAT is a well considered and reasoned order, interference by this

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR-II vs. M/S VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SAMEER JAIN

7) Mr. Tulsyan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 supported the award and submits that the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court. 8) Mr. Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that just compensation has been awarded and necessary deduction with regard to income tax ought to have been considered

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

7 of 171 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. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 144/2019 PRAKASH & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Dhananjay Khanna, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents

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

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

68 days in filing the appeal has been filed. As such, for want of notice, the appellant could not appear and file such application. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Act. 3. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the notice of the appeal

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

68. In one of the suits, which was part of the batch matters, i.e., CS(Comm) 176/2021 titled Snapdeal Private Limited vs. GoDaddycom LLC & Ors., the Court vide order dated 13th July, 2022 had observed as under: “7. Ms. Shweta Sahu, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 submits that the Defendant No.1 - GoDaddy has an abuse policy

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 153(2A) would have to be computed accordingly. 10. Our attention was drawn to the order of 12 March 2015 which reads thus:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from

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

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

7 of 2021 Ex. DW-1/P21 (Colly) – Acknowledgements of Plaintiff‟s Income Tax Returns (AYs 2018–2024) 26. Apart from the aforesaid, the plaintiff has also placed reliance upon the following documents:- ‘Mark A’ - Copy of letter dated 04.09.2020 issued by Kridhavan Agro Pvt. Ltd. Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2025 15:18:52 Signature Not Verified Signed