COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

34,36,55,736/- by relying on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in earlier year inspite of the fact the assessee has changed method of accounting. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing a sum of Rs. 16,25,59,942/- on account of disallowing

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church had disclosed this construction in its Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2010 and 31/03/2011. Being so, there was construction activity and the Believers Church paid the contract amount to these

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