COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

34,36,55,736/- by relying on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in earlier year inspite of the fact the assessee has changed method of accounting. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing a sum of Rs. 16,25,59,942/- on account of disallowing

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church had disclosed this construction in its Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2010 and 31/03/2011. Being so, there was construction activity and the Believers Church paid the contract amount to these

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

10. However, it is seen from the records produced for our consideration that, instead of reviving the business, assessee continued the rental arrangement with ATL. Fresh lease deeds were executed for different periods of one year each, for all the assessment years involved in these appeals. The assessee never approached the BIFR to continue the arrangement nor sought sanction/approval

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

34,84,148/-, which included loss from Business or Profession amounting to Rs. 5,00,14,046/-. The income from short term capital gain Rs. 97,02,942/- and long term capital loss Rs. 350,31,73,044/- was claimed as exempt. 7. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed advances written off under

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