COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

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 198 and 199? [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (5 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] (iii) Whether the deletion of income on account of depositing the P.F. and ESI, qua the share

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

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 198 and 199? [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (5 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] (iii) Whether the deletion of income on account of depositing the P.F. and ESI, qua the share

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

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 198 and 199? [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (5 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] (iii) Whether the deletion of income on account of depositing the P.F. and ESI, qua the share

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,INDERJEET SINGH

5. Resultantly, t-L e impugned order is set aside. t \ ' 120241462 lrR 247 (SC) 2 6. Accordingly, the Appcal is allowecl, No costs. Interlocutotv applications, if any pencling, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR -/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 A Cl The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "8" , Hyderabad

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

C.I.T. TDS, JAIPUR vs. M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Tds], Hyderabad, Hyderabad [34471 ...Appellant Between : AND M/s Jayadarshini Housing pvt.Ltd, Hyderabad, plot No.1246. Level .1, Gorlas Road No.62, Jubilee Hills] Hyderabati. ... Respondent counsel for the Apperrant(s) : Mr.A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Junior standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department Counsel for the Respondents : - - - The Court delivered the foilowing : JUDGMENT I THE I{I.)'{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KoSHIY

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