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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

transfer papers in favour of the second party or his / her nominee(s), representatives or any other person with the sole discretion of Second party.” 8.1 DW1 Ram Bala Gupta has stated that she signed Ex.PW1/1 on the mutual understanding with the plaintiff as he requested her to sign the same. She did not remember whether any undue influence

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

transfer cannot be treated as 'income from capital gain'. The CIT(A) treated it as "income from other sources" so as to tax the same. This finding of the CIT(A) is not proper. The assesses herein were holding trusteeship in the Carmel Educational Trust which was relinquished in favour of trustees of Believers Church, and this right

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

transfer or suspension of the domain name for which an appropriate Court would have to be approached. It is, therefore, her submissions that under national law proper frameworks can be evolved to deal with illegitimate and fraudulent websites. 101. Further, Hosting Concepts claims to be an intermediary and argues that it would not be liable for any third party

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

TRANSFERRED FROM DCIT CIRCLE-5 AHMEDABAD PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N.,ADVOCATE) AND: IQVIA RDS (INDIA) PVT LTD (EARLIER QUINTILES RESEARCH INDIA PVT LTD AND ITS SUCCESSOR), II FLOOR, ETAMIN BLOCK, PRESTIGE TECHNOLOGY PARK-II, SARJAPUR-MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU

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

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-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

prices of shares of those companies which are authorized in the (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 86 of 300 stock exchange have gone up substantially in BCrL, UCL, VTL and BCL and dividends have been consistently declared by those companies. Further, there are no ground for opposing

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

prices of shares of those companies which are authorized in the (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 86 of 300 stock exchange have gone up substantially in BCrL, UCL, VTL and BCL and dividends have been consistently declared by those companies. Further, there are no ground for opposing