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

90 days as otherwise there will be no attachment. Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:05:28 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 4/2021 and 5/2021 Page 12 of 31 d) The latest amendment in PMLA has fixed the limitation of 365 days as limitation of period for investigation. The said amendment

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

90,000/- and agricultural income only Rs.90,000/-. The allegation that the complainant lent Rs.30,00,000/- on 03.08.2003 is inherently unbelievable and is duly rebutted by the accused. In assessment year 2012–2013 (Ex.D1), the complainant’s total aggregate income was only Rs. 2,68,000/-. In assessment year 2013–2014 (Ex.D2) it was only

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Section 69A of the IT Act for blocking of the non-compliant DNR. Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.01.2026 18:27:10 Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 82/2020 Page 42 of 241 However, a concern was also expressed to the effect that various Registrants could be inconvenienced if the website/URL of the non- compliant DNR is blocked

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

68,740/- The other additions made in the assessment order under head Royalty on Handsets of Rs.78,53,40,000/- and Royalty on Infrastructure Equipments of Rs 39,04,76,313/- are also being reduced for giving statistical effect to the order of hon'ble ITAT. Net Taxable Income Rs. 5,32,88,790/- Appeal effect given as above

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. 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