abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mohanlal Jewellers Private Limited, ... on 26 September, 2025 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 'ए' यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद एवं ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद के सम BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.1178 to 1182/Chny/2025 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Years: 201718 to 202122 M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., v. The DCIT, Old No.6869, NSC Bose Road, Central Circle3(3), Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai600 001. [PAN: AAFCM 9906 M] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.1393 to 1397/Chny/2025 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Years: 201718 to 202122 The DCIT, v. M/s. Mohanlal Central Circle3(3), Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Old No.6869, NSC Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai600 001. [PAN: AAFCM 9906 M] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate Department by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 ITA Nos.1178 to 1182/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1393 to 1397/Chny/2025 (AYs:: 201718 2017 to 202122) M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd ::2 :: आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, VARKEY JM: These cross appeals by the Revenue and the assessee ssessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai [in short 'ld. CIT(A)'] all dated 24.02.2025 against the orders passed by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle3(3), Circle Chennai [in short 'the AO'] for the Assessment Years [in short 'AYs'] 201718 to 202122 22. Since several issues involved are common, all the appeals for all the assessment years were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose all the appeals by this consolidated order. 2. ts in brief are that, the assessee is a private limited company The facts which is engaged in the business of manufacture and wholesale trading of gold bullion & gold jewellery. The assessee also provides making/jobwork making/job services to its customers. A search action u/s s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was conducted on the assessee, its director(s) and others, others on 10.11.2020 in the course of which several material & electronic data was found & seized and statement(s) of key person(s) were recorded. Subsequent thereto, the AO issued notice(s) u/s 153A of the Act on 30.08.2021 and the details of income ITA Nos.1178 to 1182/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1393 to 1397/Chny/2025 (AYs:: 201718 2017 to 202122) M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd ::3 :: returned by the assessee in response to the said notice(s) for the AYs in question, are noted to be as under: under: Asst Year Return Amount (in Rs.) 201718 153A 4,37,68,120 201819
Madras High Court Malaviya National Institute Of ... vs Micro And Small Enterprises & ... on 29 February, 2024 W.P. No. 1236 of 2020 DATED : *[29.02.2024] CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 1236 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 1497 of 2020 Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT), Represented by its Registrar, Mr. Jai Narain, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur – 302 017, Rajasthan. … Petitioner vs 1. Micro and Small Enterprises & Facilitation Council, Represented by its Regional Officer/General Manager, District Industries Centre, No. 2, Raja Street, Town Hall, Coimbatore – 641 001. 2. M/s. Mukesh & Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Having registered office at Division – 2, 2/6, Ranganathar Avenue, Perumal Malai Main Road, Narasothipatty, Salem – 636 004. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the First Respondent from continuing the proceeding bearing No. MSEFC/CBER/16/2019 on the file https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/26 W.P. No. 1236 of 2020 of the First Respondent as without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Bharath Kumar For Respondents : Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate (for R1) Mr. Vishnu Mohan (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr. R.Bharath Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. Vishnu Mohan, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Petitioner had availed the services of the Second Respondent for providing comprehensive architectural and engineering consultancy for hostels, studio apartments and allied facilities for its institution. The Second Respondent raised a demand by Invoice No. M&A/1692/1516/004 dated 09.04.2015 claiming Rs. 35,75,918/ for approval of Stage1 Component Services along with interest at the rate of 12.36% for the same, followed by reminder in email https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/26 W.P. No. 1236 of 2020 dated 06.02.2017 informing that if the payment was not made, it was intended to invoke the arbitration clause in terms of Clause 5.6.5 of the agreement between the parties, which reads as follows: “5.6.5. Arbitration During the period of the project, MNIT JAIPUR will endeavor to provide Mukesh & Associates any assistance as required, which will not involve any financial implications. In the unfortunate situation of any and all disputes, disagreement and controversies arising in any manner, which cannot be settled by mutual agreement between MNIT JAIPUR and Mukesh & Associates, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration. For, this MNIT JAIPUR and Mukesh & Associates shall nominate (in writing) one Arbitrator each. In turn, these two Arbitrator shall nominate an u
JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.3,44,115/ (Rs.Three Lac Forty Four Thousand One Hudnred Fifteen only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 24% p.a. on the basis of following averments: (i) It is stated that plaintiff is a MSME registered Avertising Agency and defendant company is also having business of promotions and advertisements and both have worked on many assignments and therefore, plaintiff had faith in the defendant that whatever services are being provided by the plaintiff, the defendant shall remit the payments on time. (ii) It is further stated that in May 2021, the defendant had placed orders for publishing advertisement in newspapers, magazines etc and plaintiff got the advertisements published according to defendant's requirements and budget. In order to gain the trust, defendant cleared previous bills for some of the work done and since April 2022, defendant started evading the payment. (iii) It is further stated that plaintiff raised the bills for all the work done/services rendered from April 2022 till November 2022 (including balance of CS(Comm)/44/2024 Priyanshu Kumar Priyadarshi Vs. Optima Mark OPC Pvt.Ltd. Page no. 2 of 19 previous year) and till November 2022, the total amount due was Rs.16,28,429/ out of which defendant had paid Rs.13,50,919/ and there remained an outstanding amount of Rs.2,77,510/ and alongwith interest amount of Rs.66,605/ (calculated @ 24% p.a.). Thus, the total outstanding amount comes to Rs.3,44,115/. (iv) It is further stated that the plaintiff has time and again requested the defendant to remit the total amount due, but of no avail. It is stated that defendant has even duly acknowledged the debt to the plaintiff on many occasions on phone calls and whatsapp chats, however, defendant still failed to pay the due amount alongwith interest and thus, a legal notice dated 19.12.2022 was served upon the defendant. (v) On the the basis of aforesaid averments, plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Rs.3,44,115/, alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 24% p.a. DEFENDANT'S CASE 2. Defendants company filed their written statement and sought dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on the basis of following averments: CS(Comm)/44/2024 Priyanshu Kumar Priyadarshi Vs. Optima Mark OPC Pvt.Ltd. Page no. 3 of 19 Preliminary Objections (i) It is stated that the plaintiff has failed to file correct certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and also failed to file affidavit in terms of order VI Rule 15A and order XI Rule 3 of Commercial Courts Act. It is sated that the present suit is devoid of any cause of action and liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11 CPC. (ii) It is further stated that the suit has not been filed through a competent person as Sh.Sudhanshu Priyadarshi is not authorized to file the present suit. Reply On Merits (iii) While replying on merits, defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff in toto. It is stated that
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION J U D G M E N T:­ 1. It is averred that the defendant No.1 is the Builder and defendant No.2 is the owner of Property/plot No.1466­D/13 Govindpuri, Kalkaji,New Delhi­110019 measuring 100 sq.yds. 2. It is further averred that the Defendant No.1 and 2 had entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 23­1­2012 for the construction of flats on the above said property/plot. By virtue of the said Collaboration Agreement the Defendant No.1 was Authorized to sell the entire Upper Ground Floor(comprising of two flats/units) and entire First Floor(comprising of two flats/units) with common rights in the remaining terrace and common Scooter Parking on Lower Ground Floor size approximately 10'x12'. 3. It is averred that the defendant no.1 accordingly sold the left side flat portion of the first floor of the property bearing no.1466­ D/13 Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi­110019, measuring 55 sq. yards CS No. 9920/16 Nemi Chand Saluja Vs. Baldev Singh & Anr. Page No. 2 of 15 out of khasra no.600/93, consisting of two bed rooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, drawing cum dinning room front balcony, with common terrace rights in the remaining(top) terrace and one scooter parking on the lower ground floor size approx.10'x12' alongwith fittings and fixtures installed thereon, separate electricity and separate water connection, separate overhead water tank, common right to use the stair case, passage, pathways, driveway, and other common facilities, amenities, easements and appurtenants attached thereto, with right, title, interest and privileges provided therewith,and proportionate undivided and indivisible ownership rights in the land underneath for a total consideration of Rs.11,00,000/­ vide agreement to sell and other related documents, dated 10/04/2013. 4. It is averred that prior thereto, defendant No.1, on 01/08/2012 had agreed to sell the above flat, which was then under construction, and received an earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/­ and thereafter he received a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ on 06/08/2012 on which date a formal agreement to sell was also executed between them whereby the defendant No.1 agreed to give CS No. 9920/16 Nemi Chand Saluja Vs. Baldev Singh & Anr. Page No. 3 of 15 possession of the above flat, complete in all respects, by 31/10/2012 and to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. 5. It is further averred that the plaintiff made further payments of Rs.1,00,000/­ on 22.08.2012 and Rs.2,50,000/­ on 31.08.2012. However, the defendant No.1 failed to complete the construction and handover possession and consequently at his request the dates for further payments were deferred. 6. It is averred that on 28.10.2012, the defendant No.1 admitted in writing that the works in the above said flat had not been completed and also that he could not get the required electricity and water connections, and therefore he sought time upto 15.11.2012 and promised that he will complete all the works and obtain electricity and water connections and execute sale deed and register all the docume
Delhi High Court Orders M/S Arcop Associates Pvt Ltd vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 January, 2026 $~29 * + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 13/2026 M/S ARCOP ASSOCIATES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunwar Chandresh, Ms. Poonam Prasad, Mr. Divyansh Singh and Mr. Bitan Chakraborty, Advs. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN ORDER % 12.01.2026 I.A. 593/2026 (by petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking permission for filing lengthy list of dates and synopsis) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 13/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 9(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking following relief: a. Grant adinterim injunction against the Respondent from taking any further coercive steps against the Petitioner pursuant to unilateral Blacklisting/Debarment Order dated 30.12.2025 (IMPUGNED ORDER) issued against the Petitioner; AND/OR b. Grant adinterim injunction on the said Debarment Order dated 30.12.2025 during the pendency of the instant Petition; AND/OR c. Grant adinterim injunction on the Order imposing recovery of Rs.50,00,000/ imposed against the Petitioner vide the Blacklisting/Debarment Order dated 30.12.2025 through invocation of Clause 4.1 of the Agreement; AND/OR This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/01/2026 at 20:38:45 4. The case set out in the present petition is that the respondent invited bids for tender for the „Comprehensive Planning and Designing for Construction of New Blocks, Additional Floors and Remodelling and Up gradation of Existing Blocks for Expansion of Government Hospitals situated in North Districts of Delhi‟. 5. The bid of the petitioner was accepted at a tendered value of Rs. 5,00,00,000/ vide Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 30.01.2016 with the stipulated start date being 21.02.2016 and contractual duration of 90 months. 6. The project was prolonged due to hindrances not attributable to the petitioner, giving rise to the claims including escalation costs and unpaid fee for completed works. The petitioner invoked Clause 6 of GCC of contract agreement through multiple claimletters between FebruaryMarch 2023, with no response. A request for appointment of an Arbitrator was sent on 18.04.2023 followed by a reminder dated 12.06.2023 resulting in appointment of a Sole Arbitrator on 01.08.2023. 7. It is stated that the pleadings before the learned Arbitrator are not yet complete. However, in the midst of arbitration, the respondent issued an abrupt, debarment/blacklisting order dated 30.12.2025 whereby a penal recovery of Rs. 50 Lakhs purportedly under Clause 4.1 was imposed. 8. Mr. Kunwar Chandresh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action taken by the petitioner vide letter dated 30.12.2025 is a distinct dispute from the pending arbitral proceedings, since blacklisting is separate in nature and entails gra
Central Information Commission Sh. S.N. Singh vs Ministry Of Steel on 22 September, 2008 Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066 Website: www.cic.gov.in Decision No.3311/IC(A)/2008 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2008/01124 Dated, the 22nd September, 2008 Name of the Appellant: Sh. S.N. Singh Name of the Public Authority: Ministry of Steel i Facts: 1. The case was heard in absence of the appellant on 22/9/2008. 2. The appellant has grievances relating to settlement of retirement benefits, mainly refund of Family Pension, which was deducted due to an accounting error at the time of final settlement of pension benefits. In this context, the appellant has asked for action taken report on his representation submitted to the respondent, which is the nodal Ministry for overseeing the activities of the PSU from where the appellant retired. 3. The CPIO stated that he has duly replied and indicated that the appellant's claim for refund of Rs.15,442/ is unjustifiable. He said that the appellant, while he was working with the Accounts Branch of his employer had erroneously credited the disputed amount from the Company's funds, which was at a later stage detected and finally debited at the time of his retirement. i "If you don't ask, you don't get." Mahatma Gandhi 1 4. The CPIO stated that the appellant has made as many as twelve representations to different authorities for refund of his above claim. He had also filed a complaint before the Commission, which advised him to seek inspection of the relevant records including calculation sheets so as to examine and verify his entitlements. (Decision No. 2347/IC(A)/2008 dated 6/5/2008). But, he has not followed the direction given by this Commission. 5. The CPIO also said that the appellant has been duly replied and informed that his claim for refund is without a basis. The appellant has been unnecessarily harassing the respondent through frequent representations submitted to various officials of the Government. Decision: 6. As directed in our Decision No.2347/IC(A)/2008 dated 6/5/2008, the appellant is free to inspect and obtain a copy of calculation sheet in order to satisfy himself about the full and final settlement of pension fund. 7. As the CPIO has duly replied and that there are no provisions under the Act, for redressal of grievances of the retired employees, this appeal was unnecessary and is thus disposed of. Sd/ (Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy: (M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar ii "All men by nature desire to know." Aristotle 2 Name & address of Parties: 1. Sh. S.N. Singh, Behind Apurva Hospital, Ranchi Road P.O. Marar, Dist. Ramgarh 829 117 (Jharkhand) 2. Ms. Indrani Kaushal, Dy. Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Steel, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. Sh. Kamta Singh, Bharat Refractories Limited, Indira Gandhi Marg, SectorIV, Bokaro Steel City 827 004. Bokaro. 3
Madras High Court M/S.Fca Engineering India Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 August, 2021 WP No.27102 of 2016 DATED : 02082021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WP No.27102 of 2016 And WMP No.23283 of 2016 M/s.FCA Engineering India Private Limited, (Formerly known as Chrysler India Automotive Private Limited), RMZ Millennia Business Park1, Campus 1A, 5th Floor, 143, Dr.MGR Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai600 096. .. Petitioner vs. 1.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Room No.613, Wanaparthy Block, 121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai600 034. 2.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1, 7th Floor, New Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai600 034. .. Respondents 1/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.27102 of 2016 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent and quash the impugned proceedings in AAGCA6907M/0910 dated 18.07.2016 along with notice issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 03.03.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.N.V.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax. ORDER The order dated 18.07.2016, disposing of the objection filed by the Assessee for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chrysler Netherlands Distribution BV, a Company incorporated in Netherlands. The name of the petitionerCompany was changed to FCA Engineering India Private Limited from Chrysler India Automotive Private 2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.27102 of 2016 Limited with effect from 23.02.2015. 3. The petitioner, being set up as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under the Software Technology Park Scheme of India (STPI), is engaged in the business of providing engineering and design services to its group companies and is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. 4. The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 20092010 on 30.09.2009. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, was initiated for scrutiny procedures on 30.09.2010. A reference was made under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining arm's length price on 19.05.2011. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order on 09.01.2013. Considering all the materials available on record, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order on 28.02.2013. 5. A notice under Section 148 of the
(5) The aforesaid order dated 23.05.2008 (Supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 11.09.2013 passed in Special Appeal Leave Petition(s) Nos. 18734 of 2008 and 10291 of 2010, which have been filed by the Lucknow Development Authority and State of Uttar Pradesh, respectively. (6) After taking 'No Objection Certificate' from various department with respect to building plan, the petitioner prayed for conversion of proposed construction lan
Also At: C/o Principal, Rao Lal Singh College of Education, Sridhravali, Dist. Gurgaon 122413 Haryana. 6. Mrs. Asha Kandpal, Bank Colony, Girl Tal, Kashipur, Dist. Uddham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand 7. Sh. Vivek Joshi, C/o Sh. Aditya Joshi, Senior Auditor working with Shri Bali Ram Sharma, Sr. Account Officer, Office of Principal A. G. (Audit) Delhi, AGCR Building, IPC Estate, New Delhi Also At: C/o Principal, Rao Lal Singh College of Education, Sridhravali, Dist. Gurgaon 122413 Haryana. Also at: C/o Sh. Aditya Joshi, D­35, Old Gupta Colony, Near Vijay Nagar, Kingsway Police Line, New Delhi 110009 8. Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Sati, Reader in Hindu Hindu College, University Enclave, Delhi 7 Also at: ICCR's Visiting Professor of Hindi ELTE University, Budapest, C/o Embassy of India, 1025 Budapest, 14 Buzavirag Utca, Hungry CS No. 282/13 Page 2 of 9 Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors. Also at: C/o Professor Dinesh Singh Vice Chancellor, University Enclave, Delhi 7 Also at: C/o Dr. Vinay Sriwashtav, Principal Hindu College, University Enclave, Delhi­7 Also at: C/o Pitamber Sati (Father­in­Law) H. No.22, Hira Nagar, Haldwani, District­Nanital, Uttarakhand, Also at: Harish Sati (Husband) Pathologist Opp. J. S. Base Hospital, Haldwani, Dist. Nanital, Uttrakhand 9. Dr. Mrs. Room No.107, 108 and 20, Hans Bhawan, 1 BS Zafar Marg, New Delhi Also at: B­42, Sector­55, Noida 201301 U. P. 10. Dr. Ramesh Chand Belwal, Missing Since 2002 ....Defendants Date of Institution : 27.01.2012 Date of Reserving Judgment : 09.10.2015 Date of Decision : 09.10.2015 Final Decision : Dismissed J U D G M E N T ( Suit for Rendition of Bank Accounts and Fixed Deposits) CS No. 282/13 Page 3 of 9 Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors. 1. This is a suit for rendition of bank accounts and fixed deposit against the defendants. 2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the eldest son of late Mr. P. N. Belwal and late Mrs. Chitra Devi. That defendants no.3 to 10 are also the legal heirs of late Mr. P. N. Belwal and late Mrs. Chitra Devi. That father of the plaintiff had fixed deposit and savings bank account no.1615 with Syndicate Bank (defendant no.1) and another fixed deposit and savings bank account no.86SR00016631 with Canara Bank (defendant no.2). That father of the plaintiff expired on 19.07.2003 and m