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

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

8 I.T.A.No.56/2020 Sri.Jose Thomas 2011-12 I.T.A.No.213/2019 9 I.T.A.No.68/2020 Sri.Jose Thomas 2011-12 I.T.A.No.238/2019 10 I.T.A.No.6/2021 M/s.Carmel Educational Trust 2010-11 I.T.A.No.310/2019 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The Carmel Educational Trust, Adoor was constituted by a registered trust deed dated 14.08.2001. It is engaged in running

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

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited12

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

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN

8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited12

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

8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited12

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

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