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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, justified, arbitrary and against the fact of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee appellant is a charitable trust

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year— (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; or (ii) any funds

KRANTI MAHILA MANCH,ALWAR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for

charitable activities by way of relief of the poor and also education. Relief of poor is achieved by providing support to poor women in different SHGs in terms of helping them with get Bank Credit and providing training/education and services to improve their livelihoods. 1.1.ii The benefit is not limited to the members of the appellant trusts. On the contrary

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

charitable trust. The copy of the order served on the assessee was misplaced and thereafter it was found and sent to the counsel for preparing the appeal and then the appeal was prepared and filed before the Tribunal and in that process the delay of 38 days occurred. The delay of 38 days was condoned by the Apex Court

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

151 of the Act, and also barred by limitation\nand various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed.\n2. Rs.27,47,673/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts\nof the case in confirming the addition of Rs.27,47,673/- made by the Id. AO by\ndenying the claim/exemption

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

151 of the Act, and also barred by limitation\nand various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed.\n2. Rs.27,47,673/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts\nof the case in confirming the addition of Rs.27,47,673/- made by the Id. AO by\ndenying the claim/exemption

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

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

151), and those reproduced at pg 9 of the order of CIT(A). 2. Before the ld. CIT(A) it was submitted that assessee not charged interest from Swanand Sewa Nyas, Kota and Akhil Bhartiya Maheshwari Educational Charitable Trust, because that are charitable organisation and the advance was given for educational and social purpose. Therefore no interest was charged

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Charitable or\nreligious trust Exemption of income from property held under (Audit objection)\n Assessment year 2016-17 Assessment of assessee-trust was completed under section\n143(3) at 'Nil' income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of\nassessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations\nwhich were not included in income

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

trust. The AO has given the details of the aggregate annual receipt of Rs. 36,05,243/- out of which an amount of Rs. 32,99,012/- was found to be incurred upon charitable activities during the year under consideration. Subsequently, the AO proposed to reopen the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 16.03.2015. The reassessment framed

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

trust. The AO has given the details of the aggregate annual receipt of Rs. 36,05,243/- out of which an amount of Rs. 32,99,012/- was found to be incurred upon charitable activities during the year under consideration. Subsequently, the AO proposed to reopen the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 16.03.2015. The reassessment framed

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,KOTA vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the Grounds No

charitable trust and not incurred for business purpose. The disallowance so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provision of law and hence, kindly be deleted in full 4. Rs.23,64,158/-: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs.23

SAMAJIK PRERNA AVAM GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHAN LAPORIYA,DUDU, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 12AB of IT Act as activities are not genuine and many of trust is being run by management for personal benefit ‘’04. In view of above discussion applicant’s application for registrat4ion u/s 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on followinggrounds:- M/s. SAMAJIK PRERNA AVAM GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHAN LAPORIYA VS CIT (E), JAIPUR  Assessee having

SAMAJIK PRERNA AVAM GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHAN LAPORIYA,DUDU, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 12AB of IT Act as activities are not genuine and many of trust is being run by management for personal benefit ‘’04. In view of above discussion applicant’s application for registrat4ion u/s 12AB is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on followinggrounds:- M/s. SAMAJIK PRERNA AVAM GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHAN LAPORIYA VS CIT (E), JAIPUR  Assessee having

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

151 DTR 0089 (SC), East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v/s CIT (1997) 139 CTR 0372 (SC), Munjal Sales Corporation v/s CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC), CIT vs. HDFC Bank LTD. (2016) 284 CTR 0409 (Bom) (DPB 64-70), Hero Cycle P. Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 128 DTR 1/379 ITR 347 (SC), SEL Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

charitable purpose and that why the amount is carrying on from last many years and not used Therefore taxing of amount which was created way back will te wrong and unethical 7.2 In addition to the above, the appellant submitted copies of bank statements, the screen shots of the same are affixed here as under 7.3 On perusal

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

Bench: Him.

151 taxmann.com 339 (Jaipur Trib) Respectfully following the consistent view and after considering the factual matrix of the cash on hand in our considered view the addition made cannot sustain and therefore, we vacate the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act as the same cannot be made without rejecting the books of account