COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

nature even though the amended provision of section 13(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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

nature even though the amended provision of section 13(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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943 ITA NO. 93 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 651/Coch/2013 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S. PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. 6TH FLOOR,CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, KOCHI 682 031 (PAN AABCP 3839N) BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN SRI.BINU MATHEW