PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted that the assessee company had failed to file any agreement or supporting evidence in respect

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

disallowing 5% of administrative expenditure related to change in accounting policy. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

disallowing 5% of administrative expenditure related to change in accounting policy. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

disallowing 5% of administrative expenditure related to change in accounting policy. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came

MANDA BUILDERS vs. I.T.O.WARD-21,BIKANER

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

disallowance of Rs.2,76,167/- under Section 40A (3) of the IT Act. 4. Indeed in the impugned the ITAT

HARSHVARDHAN JOHARI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

disallowance of Rs.9,81,15,000/- towards depreciation at 25% on goodwill acquired from purchase of network business ignoring the fact

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

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

disallowed the claim of th of Rs.2,04,41,885/-. The CIT (A pital loss of Rs.9,87,485/- and al value

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

disallowed. The information about the Registrant or the Administrative Contact has to be reflected and no privacy or proxy services would be provided by any DNR of ‘.in’ or ‘.bharat’ domain name. Any violation of the said provision will constitute a material breach of the (hereinafter “the NIXI Agreement”). The said clause reads as under: “4.4.3. Registrars shall not accept

M/S SARAF EXPORT PALACE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SABINA,MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

disallowance of claim of deduction on account of commission on locker rent received in advance of Rs.112.84 Crore by following