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

11. Time and again, courts have been confronted with whether the lease of plant and machinery of a business would amount to ‘business income’ or whether it would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’. One of the earliest cases that dealt with the issue under consideration was The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi

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