COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also held to be consequential and needed no adjudication. 3. We were told that the judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court has attained finality and the department has not challenged the same before the Supreme Court. 4. This Court, while admitting D.B. Income Tax Appeal

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

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

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 and freedoms

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 23.05.2017, vide which, an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- was made on account of alleged advance given to M/s. TAIDIA Construction and written off in the year under consideration. The AO while disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted that the assessee company had failed to file any agreement

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

4 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] sale of pesticides. During assessment proceedings the records revealed that the appellant had borrowed interest bearing loans and given interest free advances to the tune of Rs.37,06,431/-, out of which Rs.32,75,000/- was given to DPFL. The AO framed assessment on 10.03.2004 and under section 36(1)(iii) disallowed the interest

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

11:- by the assessee, including the labour charges for operating the plant were reimbursed by ATL. 4. By the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee's net worth had turned positive. Thus, at the end of the eight years sanctioned by BIFR, the assessee could have revived and resumed its operations by itself. Instead, assessee chose to continue the lease

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

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