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

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 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

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