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

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

48,531/- should not ₹ be rejected to which the petitioner filed its reply on 19-6-2019 vide Annexure P-6 clarifying the bifurcation in the usage of the two power plants by filing Form G, which is a statutory form, and stating that the electricity supplied to the township is for ‘business’ purposes, no reversal is warranted

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

48,531/- should not ₹ be rejected to which the petitioner filed its reply on 19-6-2019 vide Annexure P-6 clarifying the bifurcation in the usage of the two power plants by filing Form G, which is a statutory form, and stating that the electricity supplied to the township is for ‘business’ purposes, no reversal is warranted

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

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

48 of 241 Numbers (hereinafter “ICANN”), and on behalf of certain DNRs. It was submitted by Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of the DNRs that the DNRs provide the privacy protect features in compliance of their agreements with the Registry Operators and ICANN. The same is also necessary to meet the obligations under the GDPR. In response