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

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

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

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. One CC to Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy (SC FOR INCO^IE TAX) [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Santosh Sagar Kapilavai, Advocate [OPUC] 6

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

2(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity “IT Act”]? 3. On facts, it has to be noticed that the Assessing Officer [for brevity “AO”] initiated the proceedings under 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

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

2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. 3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Article 4: Definitions: Digitally Signed

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

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