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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

charitable Trust. Rs 24,000/- Loss on house property RS 70,000/- 6.6 The bare perusal of section makes it clear that who is eligible of claiming such deduction. Thus when the language of statute is clear and unambiguous and, in such circumstances, the expert's opinion may not be used as a shelter to avoid penalty, as the explanation

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

charitable Trust. Rs 24,000/- Loss on RS 70,000/- house property 6.6 The bare perusal of section makes it clear that who is eligible of claiming such deduction. Thus when the language of statute is clear and unambiguous and, in such circumstances, the expert's opinion may not be used as a shelter to avoid penalty, as the explanation

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

charitable Trust. Rs 24,000/- Loss on house property RS 70,000/- 6.6 The bare perusal of section makes it clear that who is eligible of claiming such deduction. Thus when the language of statute is clear and unambiguous and, in such circumstances, the expert's opinion may not be used as a shelter to avoid penalty, as the explanation

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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

charitable Trust. Rs 24,000/- Loss on house property RS 70,000/- 6.6 The bare perusal of section makes it clear that who is eligible of claiming such deduction. Thus when the language of statute is clear and unambiguous and, in such circumstances, the expert's opinion may not be used as a shelter to avoid penalty, as the explanation

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

charitable Trust. Rs 24,000/- Loss on house property RS 70,000/- 6.6 The bare perusal of section makes it clear that who is eligible of claiming such deduction. Thus when the language of statute is clear and unambiguous and, in such circumstances, the expert's opinion may not be used as a shelter to avoid penalty, as the explanation

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