PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

1) Sri.Babu P. Thomas, his wife Smt.Gracy Babu and their two major sons. (2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt.Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt.Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. Due to difficulties in managing the College, and also due to the personal differences, the trustees decided to discontinue the business and entered

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATES PVT. LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The lncome Tax Apellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Hyderabad 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax(Transfer Pricing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I vs. M/S P.R. ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

1 of 4 This appeal is moved against a cross-appeal which the assessee had preferred before the ITAT. The Revenue’s appeal was the subject matter of the ITA 286/2018. The question of law in the cross-appeal too pertains to the exclusion of the two comparables which are the subject matter of the present appeal. The ITA 286/2018

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

TRANSFERRED FROM DCIT CIRCLE-5 AHMEDABAD PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N.,ADVOCATE) AND: IQVIA RDS (INDIA) PVT LTD (EARLIER QUINTILES RESEARCH INDIA PVT LTD AND ITS SUCCESSOR), II FLOOR, ETAMIN BLOCK, PRESTIGE TECHNOLOGY PARK-II, SARJAPUR-MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU

M/S SARAF SEASONING UDYOG vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

1. “And whereas the first party for his/her/their bonafide needs and requirements the first party has agreed to sell, transfer, convey all his/her/their rights, interests, titles in respect of the above said property, to the second party for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs only) out of which the First party has received

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ROYAL JEWELLERS

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

1,94,54,400/-. It is also claimed onvertible portion of debentures ral Mills Ltd. amounting to nder Section 10 (2A) of the Act, nt of Rs.75,936/- from share of r e e n n d d g d s o , f RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana

ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

1 that though the jurisdiction to decree a suit for specific performance is discretionary yet that discretion should not be arbitrary but should be sound and reasonable and has to be guided by judicial principles and the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of specific performance merely on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency

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

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

transferred the property to the builder. However, the mistake so committed would not be so I.T.A.No.113 of 2016 - 5 - grave as to make a remand especially considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the Revenue in G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co.(supra). 6. G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. (supra) was a partnership firm, acting as managing agents