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

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

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

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

TDS) Shimla …. Respondent. 3 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta, Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan, Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals, with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Standing

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

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,INDERJEET SINGH

TDS circre - 2(r), Hyderabad, 4rh Froor, A- Block, l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, HyOeraOa-O-_-S0O 001, fifri'lgin;--, ...RESPONDENT IANO:1OF2 018 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, t""Higr, court may o. pLr.Loio Jir""t the Respondent not to take any coercive steps

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

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