PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

price a he notional net business loss. Briefly the facts of the case are income in the status of Investm ue to fall in value of equity sha Mills Limited, amounting to Rs. oss on account of sale of non-co rdhman Spinning and Gener and also claimed exemption un ort ‘the Act, 1961’) of an amoun NJAB AND HARYANA

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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

exempted and not taxable in the hands of the trustees. In our opinion, there is merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that even if it is a capital receipt, it is to be treated as consideration for relinquishment of trusteeship in the Trust and the cost of acquisition is nil and hence, the gainis not taxable

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

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

transfer or suspension of the domain name for which an appropriate Court would have to be approached. It is, therefore, her submissions that under national law proper frameworks can be evolved to deal with illegitimate and fraudulent websites. 101. Further, Hosting Concepts claims to be an intermediary and argues that it would not be liable for any third party content

C I TEXEMPTIONS JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

exemption from capital gains alleging it to be sale of agricultural land. The AO found that the properties were acquired between 1992-93 to 1997-98 as also a solitary purchase in 2006-07, which were together sold in the subject assessment year to a group of builders. The AO found that the purchases were made with an intention

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

prices of shares of those companies which are authorized in the (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 86 of 300 stock exchange have gone up substantially in BCrL, UCL, VTL and BCL and dividends have been consistently declared by those companies. Further, there are no ground for opposing the re-appointment

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

prices of shares of those companies which are authorized in the (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 86 of 300 stock exchange have gone up substantially in BCrL, UCL, VTL and BCL and dividends have been consistently declared by those companies. Further, there are no ground for opposing the re-appointment