COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

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 of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount

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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

8 years, i.e., from 1995-96 till 2003- 04, one of the salient features was the scheme approved by the BIFR to revive the assessee. 10. However, it is seen from the records produced for our consideration that, instead of reviving the business, assessee continued the rental arrangement with ATL. Fresh lease deeds were executed for different periods

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