SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

6. Before NFAC, it was submitted that since the assessee trust, before the order being passed by NFAC, in the first appellate proceeding, for caption assessment year, had been granted fresh registration under Section 12AA, benefit of such exemption should be given even for the captioned assessment year. 7. However, such appeal of assessee trust was dismissed by NFAC, vide

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Charitable Trust [240 ITR 513] (Cal)  CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) [131 Taxman 386](Bom)  CIT vs. ShethManilalRancchoddasVishramBhawan Trust ]198 ITR 598] (Guj)  CIT vs. Raipur Pallottine Society [180 ITR 579] (MP)  CIT vs. Ganga Charity Trust Fund [162 ITR 612] (Guj)  CIT vs. Indian Jute Mills Association [134 ITR 68] (Cal)  Director of Income Tax (Exemption

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.”

6 of the CIT order) 1.5.1 Whether `Medical research’ is `Medical Relief’ for being Charitable Purpose’ within the definition of Section 2(15): Ld. CIT(E ) has alleged that assessee has provided professional services covered by section 194JB and, therefore such professional services are receipts from trade/commerce not covered by Section 2(15) as `Charitable’. Assessee has provided `Medical Research

SHRI SHYAM PANCHAYTI VISHRAM BHAWAN,SIKAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

charitable trust.\n\n3. 4. The Finance Act, 2015 amended and inserted the aforementioned sub-sections (a)\nand (b) in the proviso to extend relief to the taxpayer by not imposing a blanket\nprohibition on activities which are in the \"nature of trade, commerce or business\".\nFurther, the sub-sections also ensured that organizations will not misuse the provision

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

trust or institution.’’ 8.4 In nutshell, the meaning of the above proviso is that while deciding the case where business activities are visible, the predominant object test is to be applied and also the business activities should be in the course of actual carrying out of such GPU activities i.e. such business activities should only be incidental to the 6

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

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

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

charitable activities for which it was established. In such a scenario, imposing a substantial tax liability merely for a technical procedural breach may result in the closure of the trust itself, as it will not be in a position to pay the demanded tax. This would defeat the very purpose of the charitablework carried out under government supervision and cause

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

charitable activities for which it was established. In such a scenario, imposing a substantial tax liability merely for a technical procedural breach may result in the closure of the trust itself, as it will not be in a position to pay the demanded tax. This would defeat the very purpose of the charitablework carried out under government supervision and cause

SHRI VERDHMAN STHANAKVASI JAIN SHRISANGH,KOTA vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

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

6 Shri VerdhmanSthanakvasi Jain shrisangh vs. CIT(E) 4.1 In the proceeding before the ld. CIT(E) it is noted that since the assessee has not complied in full even though the final opportunity was given to the assessee. Thus, based on record the ld. CIT(E) observed that clause-4 indicate that the activities of the institution

GOLDEN INDIA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD,, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 98/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Golden India Foundation AA-13, Jay Ambey Nagar, Opp. Old Jaipur Hospital, Tonk Road, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Exemption- Ward Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTG 3675 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C.L. Yadav, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Da

6 31-03-2015 2014-15 2,06,74,961 1,91,14,835 4,24,24,550 7 31-03-2016 2015-16 2,06,74,961 2,07,79,135 4,26,63,850 It is also noted that major portion of unsecured loans has been obtained from OAC Rugs which is a proprietary concern of the Chairman

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6) Praxis Institute of Participatory Practices Vs. DIT 2015) 154 ITD 10 (Delhi) (7) Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. ITO (2015) 155 ITD 570 (Asr) (8) GVK EMRI (UP) Vs. DIT Exempt (2014) 63 SOT 195 (9)IT.O. V. Society of Essential Health Action and training (2014) 63 SOT 133 In view of the above submissions the Jewellers Association fulfills

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

133(6) (calling for information) to substantiate the allegation that sales were fabricated or non-genuine. 2.6. Ld. AO simply stated that the assessee did not provide the phone numbers of the person to whom sales were made. Also, that no confirmation was received of the sales having been made. It is submitted that there was no requirement

SHRI SHANIDEV CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur By Way Of Two Application I.E. One U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act ( In Short “The Act”) To Seek Its Registration. Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer. Another Application Were Also Presented By The Applicant Before Learned Cit(E) Seeking Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

6. Record reveals that the matters were listed before the Bench on 13.08.2025, 17.09.2025 and 11.11.2025, but none has appeared on behalf of the applicant, what to say of filing of application seeking condonation of delay. Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the applicant despite wait. In PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.Rs. & ORS. v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY

SHRI SHANIDEV CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur By Way Of Two Application I.E. One U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act ( In Short “The Act”) To Seek Its Registration. Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer. Another Application Were Also Presented By The Applicant Before Learned Cit(E) Seeking Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

6. Record reveals that the matters were listed before the Bench on 13.08.2025, 17.09.2025 and 11.11.2025, but none has appeared on behalf of the applicant, what to say of filing of application seeking condonation of delay. Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the applicant despite wait. In PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.Rs. & ORS. v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

Charitable Trust (Gujarat High Court) R/Tax Appeal No. 1335 of 2018 Date of 11 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO Judgement/Order: 30/07/2019 while deciding the issue under consideration if Assesseeremained absent on more than one occasions and appeal decided on merits then whether it will be called as Ex-parte order. The Hon'ble High Court states that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S ALPHA BETA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

charitable institutions provided in section 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the Income-tax Act when specific defects in books of accounts were pointed out by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,75,05,508/- (decrease in asset

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

6. We also would like to draw on the observation and finding In the case of Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 28th December, 2020 (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai) delivered by the honble President and vice president as under: 22 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur “20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) to 58 parties. Out of 58 parties, notices were duly served to\n38 parties and 18 of them confirmed the fact of giving the advance to the\nassessee for purchase of jewellery.\n2.17. The fact that 18 notices out of total 58 notices remained unserved does not go\nagainst the assessee. Ld. AO has not confronted the said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

trusts. The ITO. however, rejected the assessee's claim for deduction of the donations under section 80G. The Tribunal held that the expression 'sums' occurring in section 80G did not include any donation made in kind in the shape of shares. On a reference, the High Court agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal. On appeal by certificate under