COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

13(8) r.w. 1st and 2nd proviso of section 2(15) are attracted? ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing the benefits of set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act, deleting the additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

13 :: 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As all these appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of a common order dated 30.09.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'], Cochin Bench, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

section 36(1)(iii) disallowed the interest to the tune of Rs.4,91,250/- out of interest paid by the appellant of Rs.14,25,855/-. The CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance of interest vide order dated 18.09.2007. Before tribunal, the assessee pleaded that the advances were given in normal course of business. The payment to DPFL was for setting

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

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

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 High Court, Chandigarh. ITA-81-2024 income from Rs.2,04,41,88 head ‘capital g 4. T referred

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

10:- (ii) Whether the penalty of Rs.52 lakhs imposed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and paid under orders of the High Court, ought to be treated as an expenditure for the assessment year, even though the dispute had not attained finality? (iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid

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

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

disallowance of Rs.2,76,167 u/s.40A(3) as made by the learned A.O. is improper and unjustified and the learned Commissioner should not have sustained the action of the A.O. 2. For that the addition of Rs.7,01,000/- as sustained by the learned Commissioner is highly unjustified and uncalled for. 3. For that the proceedings initiated u/S.147

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

10 Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 82/2020 Page 57 of 241 4(5). ‘pseudonymisation’ means the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures

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 of the advance. 9. AO further adjusted the business loss of Rs. 14,046/- with the income from short term capital loss and assessed the total income at Rs. 96,88,900/- as against loss