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

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

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 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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data

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