M/S S B L PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 72 JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

40 lakhs as project development expenses in three installments and ₹10 lakhs was required to be paid to the Municipality for every year of the operation period before the end of accounting year. It is pertinent to mention that the operation period was 29 years 3 months. Under the terms of the clauses of the agreement, the builder is entitled

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I vs. SHRI ARVIND GOTEWAL S/O SHREERAM GOTEWAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

40,64,897/- for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.359 of 2018 and tax was computed on the book profit of Rs.125,72,44,353/- in all the appeals. 2. A search was conducted under Section 132 of Income Tax Act on the premises of the assessee. A notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued and served

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JODHPUR vs. GAJ SINGH

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

40% is to be added towards future prospects, which works out to Rs.7,49,547/- per annum. The wife and mother of the deceased are considered to be dependant on the income of the deceased. The mere fact that the wife is an earning person does not by itself lead to an inference that the wife 14 was not dependant

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

40  the Allahabad High Court in Samsung India case, under similar circumstances, has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nokia India Case and held that chargers sold as part of a composite package with mobile phones are taxable at the same rate as the mobile phones. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires