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

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

3) What is the effect, if any, of issuance of the cheque for Rs.4.50 lac by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff? OPP. (4) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell? OPP. (5) Whether the discretion in the grant of the relief of specific performance is to be exercised

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

13 in pAN No. AADCM3491M on the file of the Additional commissioner of lncome Tax(Transfer pricing), 6th Floor, B. Block. lr Towers, A c Gurads, Hyderabad-SO0 004, preferred against the Assessment order dated 30-01-2014 in PAN/G.t.R.No. AADCM3491MlM-171 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad. Between: The Principal Commissioner

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity “IT Act”]? 3. On facts, it has to be noticed that the Assessing Officer [for brevity “AO”] initiated the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act on the basis of the return filed by the assessee showing the amount received on sale of certain properties and claiming exemption from capital

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Article 4: Definitions: Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.01.2026 18:27:10 Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 82/2020 Page 57 of 241 4(5). ‘pseudonymisation’ means

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

price during the pendency of ligation. It was accordingly held that what has to be seen is that who is the defaulting party and whether the party is taking undue advantage over the other and the hardship that may be caused to either of the parties. 14. It was held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform

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

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

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 High Court, Chandigarh. ITA-81-2024 income from Rs.2,04,41,88 head ‘capital g 4. T referred