PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. NAMITA CHHABRA

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

26. In Maruti Suzuki Limited (supra), their Lordships have clearly held that the assessee would be entitled to credit on the eligible inputs utilised in the generation of electricity to the extent to which they are using the produced electricity within their factory (for captive consumption) and they would not be entitled to CENVAT credit to the extent

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

26. In Maruti Suzuki Limited (supra), their Lordships have clearly held that the assessee would be entitled to credit on the eligible inputs utilised in the generation of electricity to the extent to which they are using the produced electricity within their factory (for captive consumption) and they would not be entitled to CENVAT credit to the extent

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

transferred. The directions were issued not to sanction mutation till the pendency of the inquiry. 26. The perusal of the statement of DW-2 Maan Singh son of Kabul Singh and also the defendant would go on to show that it was admitted by him that his father had 20 executed sale deeds of other lands during his life time

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

price paid by him to the person renouncing such right and the amount paid by him to the company or institution, as the case may be, for acquiring such financial asset; (ab) in relation to a capital asset, being equity share or share allotted to a shareholder of a recognised stock exchange in India under a scheme for demutilisation

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

26. It is submitted that the non-cooperation of HVL complained of is the refusal of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of HVL to make a concession that HVL shall cause a recommendee of the Joint APLs to be appointed as a Director of the 3 subsidiary companies of a listed company. It is submitted that appointment

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

26. It is submitted that the non-cooperation of HVL complained of is the refusal of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of HVL to make a concession that HVL shall cause a recommendee of the Joint APLs to be appointed as a Director of the 3 subsidiary companies of a listed company. It is submitted that appointment

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

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 gains alleging it to be sale of agricultural land. The AO found that the properties were acquired between 1992-93 to 1997-98 as also a solitary purchase

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data