COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

11–13 of the Act qua the assessee when exorbitant income of the tune of Rs. 161.00 crores is at stake? (ii) Whether claiming Tax Deducted at Source Certificate (TDS) on the one hand and not including the Income pertaining to it in the Return is not contrary to provisions of Income Tax Act more particularly Section

C.I.T. CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. PRADEEP LUNAWAT

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

11) The said Appellate Tribunal vide order dt. 28.05.2009 dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders passed by the Assessing Authority and other Authorities referred to above. 12) Challenging the same, these appeals are filed. 13) Though, learned counsel for the Excise & Taxation Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh, which is the appellant herein contended that Section

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact

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