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 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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee company. 6. On 28.03.2017, the original return was revised and the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 354,34,84,148/-, 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

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

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 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

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. 3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Article 4: Definitions: Digitally Signed