COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

depreciation.” 7. This Court, while admitting D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 284/2010 framed the following substantial questions of law: ”(i) Whether overlooking of specific provisions of Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which categorically has taken away the exemption given to local authorities from income tax other than Panchayat and Municipal Boards was justified

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

depreciation.” 7. This Court, while admitting D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 284/2010 framed the following substantial questions of law: ”(i) Whether overlooking of specific provisions of Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which categorically has taken away the exemption given to local authorities from income tax other than Panchayat and Municipal Boards was justified

C.I.T. II JODHPUR vs. M/S JEEWAN RAM CHOUDHARY

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

deducted as an expenditure. 20. It is not in dispute, as held in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemical Constructions [(2000) 243 ITR 858 (Mad.)] and in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC)] that when penalty is paid, comprising of elements of compensation and penalty, only that part

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

deduction of tax at source on an amount paid is sufficient to establish that alleged service is rendered, in respect of the amount paid ? I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 30 :: (iii) Whether payment made to erstwhile trustees without services actually rendered by them, will fall outside the ambit of Sec.13 ? (iv) Whether mere book