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

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

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

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

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

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

3 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] Rs.28,62,084/- to M/s. Tetenal India Limited and Rs.2,01,668/- to M/s. Mooji Tulsidas & Co. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant took the stand that the advances were in normal course of business and had nothing to do with the interest bearing loans and were given from own funds

M/S SARAF EXPORT PALACE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SABINA,MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

3 AND: M/s. CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. ....RESPONDENT (BY SRI P SURYANARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15.09.2017 PASSED IN ITA No.931/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE

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

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

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 By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.01.2026 18:27:10 Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 82/2020 Page 57 of 241 4(5). ‘pseudonymisation’ means

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

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

3. B its return of capital loss du and General M that capital lo of M/s Var Rs.9,87,485/- 1961 (for sho IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA I D oner of Income Tax-1 Ludhiana Vs. h Investment & Training Co LP), Ludhiana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Ranvijay Singh