COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

34,36,55,736/- by relying on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in earlier year inspite of the fact the assessee has changed method of accounting. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing a sum of Rs. 16,25,59,942/- on account of disallowing

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church had disclosed this construction in its Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2010 and 31/03/2011. Being so, there was construction activity and the Believers Church paid the contract amount to these

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. M/S ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in FAO (OS) 11/2019 Page 2 of 6 short Act of 1996), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the same. 2. The only plea advanced by Mr. Puneet Mittal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant is that supplementary work order dated 7th December, 2005 did not contain