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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

75, 76, 85. 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

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

68,294/- to M/s. Dugar Photofilms Limited (for short ‘DPFL’), of [2025:RJ-JP:13935-DB] (3 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] Rs.28,62,084/- to M/s. Tetenal India Limited and Rs.2,01,668/- to M/s. Mooji Tulsidas & Co. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant took the stand that the advances were in normal course of business

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

68. It must also be borne in mind that the freezing of a bank account in violation of statutory requirements has far-reaching consequences. Such action directly impinges upon the constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property except in accordance with the authority

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 256/2017 POOJA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....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

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Section 19 of the CPC is so interpreted, the purpose thereof would bedefeated. Similarly, State of Meghalaya & Ors v Jyotsna Das AIR17 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1049.231991 Gauhati 96 also held that wrong done includes and covers theeffect of the act. The counsel for the defendants has relieduponRashtriya Mahila Kosh v The Dale View 2007 IV AD (Delhi