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

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

2) The background facts are that State of Himachal Pradesh enacted the Himachal Pradesh Tolls Act, 1975 ( for short ‘the Act’) to provide for the levy and collection of tolls on mechanical vehicles passing over any road infrastructure in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3) Tolls barriers have then been established on road infrastructure in certain districts under Section

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