COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (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

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

1, Article 4(5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

2 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] 31.07.2008 and 20.06.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity ‘the tribunal’). 3. On 01.12.2008 and 18.11.2009, the appeals were admitted on following substantial questions of law for assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively:- “Whether the ITAT was justified in having reveresed the finding of the CIT (Appeals

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

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

1,94,54,400/-. It is also claimed onvertible portion of debentures ral Mills Ltd. amounting to nder 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

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

Bench: SABINA,MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the 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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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 has recorded as under: “2. In the appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds: 1