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

14 (1992) 3 SCC 624 Page 16 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} Sales Tax Rules, 1959 held that the rule-making authority can provide for a small abridgement or curtailment while extending a concession, and observed as under: - “9. … We fail to understand how a valid grievance can be made in respect of such deduction when

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

14 :: 8 I.T.A.No.56/2020 Sri.Jose Thomas 2011-12 I.T.A.No.213/2019 9 I.T.A.No.68/2020 Sri.Jose Thomas 2011-12 I.T.A.No.238/2019 10 I.T.A.No.6/2021 M/s.Carmel Educational Trust 2010-11 I.T.A.No.310/2019 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The Carmel Educational Trust, Adoor was constituted by a registered trust deed dated 14.08.2001. It is engaged

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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

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

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

14 of 34 10.9 I would also refer to the judgment titled as “Shree Aadhiya Build Well Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors, 228 (2016) Delhi Law Times 10, wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:- “9. Onus of this issue was on the plaintiff on account of the provision of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. 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

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