RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Charitable Trust [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras) (31-10-2022] "63. The statements given to the Assessing officer under section 132 (4

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) and/or\nunder Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on\n20.05.2013, The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours\nindicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of\nthe appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee\non 20.05.2013 explained in minute

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

charitable activities is not applicable in the case of the assessee during this year under consideration. Hence, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is applicable in this case considering it a business entity. Accordingly, as the assessee trust has not deducted TDS on the aforesaid expenses of as per provisions of section 1940, then the same amount of Rs.2

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under\nSection 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the\nassessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been\ngenerally made within reasonable time or by filing complaint to superior\nauthorities or otherwise brought to notice of the higher officials

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under\nSection 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the\nassessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been\ngenerally made within reasonable time or by filing complaint to superior\nauthorities or otherwise brought to notice of the higher officials

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under\nSection 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the\nassessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been\ngenerally made within reasonable time or by filing complaint to superior\nauthorities or otherwise brought to notice of the higher officials

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under\nSection 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the\nassessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been\ngenerally made within reasonable time or by filing complaint to superior\nauthorities or otherwise brought to notice of the higher officials

M/S. DISHA DELPHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 626/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :............ Disha Delphi Education Society, Cuke Pr.Cit (Central), 334, Asiad Village, Hauz Khas, Vs. Jaipur. New Delhi-110049. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 8461 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 313/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2016-17 Disha Delphi Education Society, Cuke Pr.Cit (Central), Vs. 334, Asiad Village, Hauz Khas, Jaipur. New Delhi-110049. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 8461 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ajay Chandra (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Common Assessee Against The Separate Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 & 29/10/2020 For The A.Y. 2016-17 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 2

132 of the I.T. Act in the premises of Shri Lalit Maheshwari who is the CFO & key person in Allen Group at A-205, Neelanchal, Shrinathpuram, Kota, various incriminating documents were found and seized. These documents contained incriminating evidences relating to the key individuals of the Allen Group making various payments for acquiring management and administrative rights in the assessee

DISHA DELPHI EDUCATION SOCIETY C/O- KALANI & CO. CA, 5TH FLOOR, KILESTONE BUILDING GANDHINAGAR TURN, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 626/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :............ Disha Delphi Education Society, Cuke Pr.Cit (Central), 334, Asiad Village, Hauz Khas, Vs. Jaipur. New Delhi-110049. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 8461 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 313/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2016-17 Disha Delphi Education Society, Cuke Pr.Cit (Central), Vs. 334, Asiad Village, Hauz Khas, Jaipur. New Delhi-110049. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 8461 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ajay Chandra (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Common Assessee Against The Separate Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 & 29/10/2020 For The A.Y. 2016-17 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 2

132 of the I.T. Act in the premises of Shri Lalit Maheshwari who is the CFO & key person in Allen Group at A-205, Neelanchal, Shrinathpuram, Kota, various incriminating documents were found and seized. These documents contained incriminating evidences relating to the key individuals of the Allen Group making various payments for acquiring management and administrative rights in the assessee

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

charitable purposes. However the appellant has not done so. Further it is not the case of the appellant that he has obtained registration under section 12A/12AA. The appellant has also not complied with the legal provisions of trust and exemption provisions under section 11 and 12 regarding the registration of trust and regarding the application of the voluntary contribution

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

charitable purposes. However the appellant has not done so. Further it is not the case of the appellant that he has obtained registration under section 12A/12AA. The appellant has also not complied with the legal provisions of trust and exemption provisions under section 11 and 12 regarding the registration of trust and regarding the application of the voluntary contribution

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

4,55,639/-) is deleted. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 stands partly allowed.” Ground No. 2 before ld. CIT(A) (vii) Further in regard to the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 115BBE have been invoked without any opportunity provided by the AO, it is held that the CIT(A) holds concurrent jurisdiction with that

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

4,55,639/-) is deleted. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 stands partly allowed.” Ground No. 2 before ld. CIT(A) (vii) Further in regard to the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 115BBE have been invoked without any opportunity provided by the AO, it is held that the CIT(A) holds concurrent jurisdiction with that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

Charitable Trust (2022) 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/(2023) 450 ITR 368 (Madras)[31.10.2022] x x x x Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252 (Allahabad) x x x x Bachittar Singh vs CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana) x x x x CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537 (Kerala

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

Charitable Trust (2022) 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/(2023) 450 ITR 368 (Madras)[31.10.2022] x x x x Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252 (Allahabad) x x x x Bachittar Singh vs CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana) x x x x CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537 (Kerala

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year; 20 ITA 197/JP/2022 THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1 JAIPUR It is noted from Section 2 (15) which defines 'charitable purposes’ and its proviso to section 2 (15) was directed to prevent the unholy practice of pure trade, commerce and business entities from masking their activities

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

Trust did not have actual funds in hand, as the invoices raised upon Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. were not realized till 31/03/2022. Therefore, the surplus was carried forward for succeeding year by filing form 9A for exercising the option under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 for deeming

DCIT, AJMER vs. M/S V.C. GRANITE, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

132 of the IT ACT. Certain incriminating documents/loose papers/books of accounts etc. were also found, inventorized and some of them also seized or impounded at the time of search/survey under section 132/133A of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant firm filed its original return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 31.03.2021 declaring the total income