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

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’) claiming refund of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of the Compensation Cess paid on import of coal. The refund claimed by the petitioner was to the tune of ₹ 7,44,73,347/- for the month of February, 2019 on 1st April

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

54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’) claiming refund of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of the Compensation Cess paid on import of coal. The refund claimed by the petitioner was to the tune of ₹ 7,44,73,347/- for the month of February, 2019 on 1st April

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

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

price a he notional net business loss. Briefly the facts of the case are income in the status of Investm ue to fall in value of equity sha Mills Limited, amounting to Rs. oss on account of sale of non-co rdhman Spinning and Gener and also claimed exemption un ort ‘the Act, 1961’) of an amoun NJAB AND HARYANA

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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