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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ROYAL JEWELLERS

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 10 (2A) of the Act, nt of Rs.75,936/- from share of r e e n n d d g d s o , f RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. ITA-81-2024 income from Rs.2,04,41,88 head ‘capital g 4. T referred

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record