JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

119, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable trust - Registration Procedure (Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B) - Assessment year 2016-17- Assessee, a public charitable trust registered under section

KINKINI,BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

Charitable Trust v. ITO (Exemption) in Application No.6097 of 2020 decided on 09th December, 2020/[2021] 125 taxmann.com 75/278 Taxman 148 (Gujarat) as well as the decision in case of Social Security Scheme of GICEA (supra) to uphold the decision of the CIT (Appeals), wherein this Court has held that the approach of the authority in such type of cases

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust vs. ITO (Exemption) 125 Taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat) 2. CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal 41 Taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) 3. Social Security Scheme of GICEA vs. CIT (Exemption) 147 Taxmann.com 283 (Gujarat) Wherein the courts have held the assessee trust having substantially satisfied conditions for availing exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961, it should not be denied exemption

VED- VACHASPATI SHASTRI CHARITABLE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal is disposed of and the application u/s 80G of the Act, filed in Form 10AB, is restored to

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

119 of the Act, hereby extends the due date of making an application/intimation electronically in (i) Form No. lOA, in case of an application under clause (i) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A or under clause (i) of the first proviso

SWAMI KESHWANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 273/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke C.I.T. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur Is Illegal & Against The Law Because The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Examined & Considered The Matter Involved In This Order. 2. That The Donation So Received Was Received For A Specific Purpose & Use, Hence It Was Corpus Donation. The Corpus Donation Cannot Be Treated As Part Of Income & Expenditure Account.

Charitable Trust (2014) 63 SOT 142 (Ahmedabad) 5. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is legal and speaking order and fulfills all the ingredients of Section 263 of the Act. The ld. CIT-DR has also relied

RAMADEVI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, M/S Ramadevi Memorial Charitable Trust vs

119[or section 12] shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof— (a) -- M/S Ramadevi Memorial Charitable Trust

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

119(2). Thus these shows the contradictory\napproach of the lower authorities. If the return was not valid the Id. AO could not\nhave issued the notice u/s 143(2), 142(1), returned income etc. The only reason\ngiven is not filing the ITR u/s 139(4C).\n5.2 Further in section 139(4C), it no where it has been stated

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

119(2). Thus these shows the contradictory\napproach of the lower authorities. If the return was not valid the Id. AO could not\nhave issued the notice u/s 143(2), 142(1), returned income etc. The only reason\ngiven is not filing the ITR u/s 139(4C).\n5.2 Further in section 139(4C), it no where it has been stated

UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.775 to 778/JP/2024 Uttrakhand Samaj 51/117 Sec 5, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur cuke Vs. The CIT, Exemption Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATU 6874 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@D

charitable activities. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Exemptions, Jaipur, was ignore the facts and without giving proper opportunity and against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, we request you to pass an order for the issue against the application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT (Exemption

UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

charitable activities. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Exemptions, Jaipur, was ignore the facts and without giving proper opportunity and against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, we request you to pass an order for the issue against the application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT (Exemption

UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPURTHE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

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

charitable activities. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Exemptions, Jaipur, was ignore the facts and without giving proper opportunity and against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, we request you to pass an order for the issue against the application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT (Exemption

SHRI JAIN SHWETAMBER TERAPANTHI VIDYALAYA COMMITTEE,STATION ROAD, PURANI SADAK vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CIT EXEMPTION JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Jain Shwetamber Terapanthi Vidyalaya Committee, Station Road Churu, Rajasthan - 331001 Pan No.:Aaots0584M ...... Appellant Vs. Cit Exemption, Jaipur, Kailash Height, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur ...... Respondent

Charitable Trust, ITA Nos. 1027 & 1028/JPR/2024; 5. Order of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur is contradictory in nature, on page 14 last paragraph, he himself accepted that activities begun since F.Y. 2018-19 itself (Actually during F.Y. 2016-17, as the scrutiny assessment order is there with the paper book filed by the assessee), in that case it is also

ARUN KUMAR PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PR CIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 119. Reliance is made to the following decisions :- Ritesh Suhalka vs. Principal CIT, Udaipur ITA No. 383/Jodh/2019 dated 21.12.2020. Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCIT (Exemption) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 dated 28th December, 2020. (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai). CIT vs. Paras Cotton Co., 288 ITR 211 (Raj.) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. (2010) 46 DTR (Del.) 109. PCIT

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 274 cannot be mechanically appended to an arbitrary and procedurally flawed assessment order. Since the main proceedings conducted by the ITO lack legal and factual sanctity, the consequent penalty proceedings are also rendered invalid and untenable in law. Such mechanical initiation of penalty proceedings not only violates the statutory provisions but also

TAGORE SHIKSHA SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

charitable trust which is registered u/s 12A of the Act and it is running an TAGORE SHIKSHA SAMITI, VS ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION) educational institution. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 31-10-2018 declaring a total income of Rs.Nil after claiming exemption u/s 11 and12 of the Act. The return of income

RAJASTHAN OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 11(2) read with S. 11(5) of the Act stand fully satisfied, the denial of exemption solely on the ground of timing of deposit particularly when such funds were never misapplied (used for other purposes than for trust) would certainly defeat the object and spirit of the statute. The addition so made is therefore wholly unjustified and liable

SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

119 DTR 303 (J&K) (HC) AO having issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) along with necessary questionnaire to the assessees and the assessees having appeared before the AO and produced the books of accounts and other records besides submitting replies to the questionnaire, it cannot be said that the AO did not give many hearings and thumb nail

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR (129) (Rajasthan), CIT Vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC) held that ‘The jurisdiction