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

4) of the CGST Act. It is not the substantive right of the dealer to claim ITC, it is a kind of concession provided by the legislature on fulfillment of certain conditions mentioned in the provision. 24. The petitioner in Form G submitted Electricity Duty under the Electricity Duty Rules mentioning therein that 1388641 KWH Page

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules. So far as Keynote Corporate Service Ltd. is concerned, the ITAT appears to have excluded that entity from the list of comparables on the ground that for the present as also the previous year, the entity had reported abnormally high profits. The Revenue correctly

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), Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad 4

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

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

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 and freedoms

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 16 ( c) of the Specific Relief Act, hence I hold that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove issue No. 4 that plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform its part of the Agreement to Sell dated 4.11.2006. No money decree for amounts paid by plaintiff is passed as plaintiff is not seeking through this Court

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

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

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