COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in [(2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC)] and answered the substantial question No.1 against the Department. Considering that the question No. 1 was answered against the department, the action of treating the income to be a taxable income under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in [(2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC)] and answered the substantial question No.1 against the Department. Considering that the question No. 1 was answered against the department, the action of treating the income to be a taxable income under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

exempted and not taxable in the hands of the trustees. In our opinion, there is merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that even if it is a capital receipt, it is to be treated as consideration for relinquishment of trusteeship in the Trust and the cost of acquisition is nil and hence, the gainis not taxable

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

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

exemption un ort ‘the Act, 1961’) of an amoun NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-81-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2024 …Appellant . (Now known as Adishwar …Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH g Counsel for the appellant. ) dated 12.10.2023, passed by the llowing the appeal filed by the there was no actual loss on and the Tribunal has erred

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