COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed by the Hon’ble Court in the interests of justice.” [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (3 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed by the Hon’ble Court in the interests of justice.” [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (3 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

c) are attracted as assessee is not granted exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed by the Hon’ble Court in the interests of justice.” [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (3 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

11. Time and again, courts have been confronted with whether the lease of plant and machinery of a business would amount to ‘business income’ or whether it would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’. One of the earliest cases that dealt with the issue under consideration was The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi

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

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