C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of section 11(2) r.w.s. 11(3)(c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of section 11(2) r.w.s. 11(3)(c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of section 11(2) r.w.s. 11(3)(c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also

HARSHVARDHAN JOHARI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 1 October 2018 and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration:- “2.1 Whether ld. ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,33,295/- made by Assessing officer by holding that the equipment forms integral part of the computer systems and the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation