COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

8) r.w. 1st and 2nd proviso of section 2(15) are attracted? ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing the benefits of set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act, deleting the additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

8) r.w. 1st and 2nd proviso of section 2(15) are attracted? ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing the benefits of set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act, deleting the additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,INDERJEET SINGH

SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 A Cl The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "8" , Hyderabad The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad The Asst. Commissioner of lncome Tax , TDS

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

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 201 (1-A) of the Act for the period between the date of default in deduction of TDS and the date on which the recipient actually paid income tax on the amount for which there has been a short fall in such deduction. 16) Therefore, before any liability is imposed on the appellant for payment

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores