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 to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting

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 and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing Rs. 1,36,09,228/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital asset is already

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 and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing Rs. 1,36,09,228/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital asset is already

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 and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing Rs. 1,36,09,228/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital asset is already

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 in the shares and thus vid er of the AO. The order of CIT (Appeals) was dated 15.05.2006, set aside the o me set off derived by the assesse ble as income under the hea The assessee