TREHAN SEVA BHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST,ALWAR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry\non are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the Trust. In contrast, the\nposition would be different where the Commissioner proposes to cancel the registration of a\nTrust under sub-section (3) of section 12AA. There the Commissioner would

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

25 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur 32. Further, section 12AA talks about the powers of the Commissioner on receipt of application seeking registration under section 12A and calling for information/documents and making further enquiries in order to satisfy himself about objects of the trust and genuineness of the activities of the trust

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid by\nassessee for want of supporting documents—Other than these three additions\nthere

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid by\nassessee for want of supporting documents—Other than these three additions\nthere

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

25 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR d. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND INCOME TAX OFFICER VERSUS FR MULLERS CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS (2014) 363 ITR 230 (Kar) Interpretation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act - Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that when a part of income is held to be violative of the provisions

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

25. The ld AR has submitted that the assessee University is established under a statute by the State of Rajasthan vide Act No. 6 of 2008 namely, Singhania University Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu) Act, 2008. It is submitted that a University is a different and distinct class from societies, trusts and other educational institutions. Unlike trusts, societies and other educational institutions

BHIWADI INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

10, shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is so applied or ceases to be accumulated or set apart or ceases to remain so invested or deposited or credited or paid or as the case may be, of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the aforesaid period

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

25% 2013-14 1879652330 400021086 21% From the above table it can be noted that the percentage of profit earned is more than the normal profit which itself shows that this is existing for earning profit. This is more evident from Balance Sheet that it is having capital contribution of Rs.78292/- only whereas accumulated profit earned is Rs.2

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

25. In Lukhnow Development Authority’s case (supra), while examining the question regarding applicability o proviso to Section 2(15), Allahabad High Court observed: “29. For the applicability of proviso to Section 2(15), the activities of the trust should be carried out on commercial lines with intention to make profit. Where the trust is carrying out its activates

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

25. In Lukhnow Development Authority’s case (supra), while examining the question regarding applicability o proviso to Section 2(15), Allahabad High Court observed: “29. For the applicability of proviso to Section 2(15), the activities of the trust should be carried out on commercial lines with intention to make profit. Where the trust is carrying out its activates

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

25. In Lukhnow Development Authority’s case (supra), while examining the question regarding applicability o proviso to Section 2(15), Allahabad High Court observed: “29. For the applicability of proviso to Section 2(15), the activities of the trust should be carried out on commercial lines with intention to make profit. Where the trust is carrying out its activates

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

25). It is also registered with DevasthanVibhag, Jaipur under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 on 16.06.1970(PB 24). The trust deed was first amended on 31.03.2008 (PB 26-35) and thereafter again amended on 29.01.2023 (PB 12-23). 2. The assessee applied for provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act on 30.01.2023 and provisional approval

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

25). It is also registered with DevasthanVibhag, Jaipur under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 on 16.06.1970(PB 24). The trust deed was first amended on 31.03.2008 (PB 26-35) and thereafter again amended on 29.01.2023 (PB 12-23). 2. The assessee applied for provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act on 30.01.2023 and provisional approval

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

25 taxmann.com 124 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 358 (Punjab & Haryana) [13-09-2010] examined this issue. Head notes of this decision are as under- "Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment General -Assessment year 2001-02 In reassessment, Assessing Officer can make addition even on ground on which reassessment notice might not have been issued

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

25 lakhs during the year breaching section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the activities carried out by the JDA, falls under the category of last limb of charitable purpose defined in section 2(15) i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility. As the activities are out of purview of charitable purpose exemption u/s 11 is denied

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

25 lakhs during the year breaching section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the activities carried out by the JDA, falls under the category of last limb of charitable purpose defined in section 2(15) i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility. As the activities are out of purview of charitable purpose exemption u/s 11 is denied

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10(23C).\nIt is also important to mention here that though both decision are specifically for\n10(23C), however, if we read the decision of New Noble education, Hon'ble Apex\ncourt has discussed the various provision of section 11 and 12 also in this\nregard, and it became clear that decisions are equally applicable even for\nregistration under