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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

disallowance is made. In assessment proceedings, the only concern is with the assessment of the income, quantification and computation of total income as per the provisions of the Act, whereas, in penalty proceedings, the primary concern is with the conduct of the assessee. Penalty is imposed not because an addition

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), the Assessee should be precluded from urging its since before the ITAT, he did not press it. He points out that the Assessee also did not press the issue regarding disallowance of Rs.2,76,167/- under Section 40A (3) of the IT Act. 4. Indeed in the impugned the ITAT has recorded as under

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

addition made on account of deemed interest in respect of credits appearing in the name of M/s. DPEL. Tetenal India Limited and M/s. Moolji Tulsidas & Company, on account of interest on interest free advances given to the sister concern?” 4. These appeals were dismissed on 10.05.2017 and 26.04.2017 by this Court but were remitted back by Supreme Court vide order

HARSHVARDHAN JOHARI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 1 October 2018 and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration:- “2.1 Whether ld. ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,33,295/- made by Assessing officer by holding that the equipment forms integral part of the computer systems and the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation

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 the decision of Apex Court in the case of 5 CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES (reported in 358 ITR page 295) and decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Bank of Tokyo Ltd.? (2) Whether on the facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of section 11(2) r.w.s. 11(3)(c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of section 11(2) r.w.s. 11(3)(c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of section 11(2) r.w.s. 11(3)(c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person. Article 25: Data protection by design and by default: 1. Taking into account the state of the art, the cost of implementation and the nature, scope