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

13 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, following two questions arise for consideration: - 1. Whether the maintenance of township and supply of electrical energy thereof is in the course or furtherance of business in terms of Section 2(17) read with Section 16(1

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

13 :: 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As all these appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of a common order dated 30.09.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'], Cochin Bench, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

E-2, Upper Ground Floor, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and with respect to which, the parties had entered into two agreements on RFA No. 322/2017 Page 2 of 34 20.02.2008, one being an Agreement to Sell and another being an Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter „MOU‟). 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that

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

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

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