THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATES PVT. LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

6. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The lncome Tax Apellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Hyderabad 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax(Transfer Pricing

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

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

6. The issue, however, is that whether the appellant/plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. What is important is that a buyer such as the appellant/plaintiff must prove his readiness i.e. the financial capacity to make payment of the balance sale consideration as required by 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

6 of GDPR, that the provisions of GDPR have to be strictly followed and that only in cases of ‘legitimate interest’ that override the interest of privacy would disclosure of information of a Registrant be permitted. On the basis of said provision, the ld. Senior Counsel submits that GoDaddy has adopted a mechanism wherein a specific IP complaint form

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

6. In I.T.A.No.47/2020, the following substantial questions of law have been raised: (i) Whether the trustees of a public charitable trust have a right to trusteeship and if they need to be compensated for relinquishing such right ? (ii) Whether the trusteees are entitled to such benefits from the trust other than remuneration for services rendered by them ? (iii) Whether

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

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

6) Whether after the cut of date i.e. 31.7.2004, the agreement became un-executable and the suit also barred by limitation? OPD. 7) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit, as alleged? OPD. 9) Relief." 12. After giving issue-wise findings, the learned Single Judge partly

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