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)

197 (SC)  CIT(E) vs. Shiv Kumar Sumitra Devi Smarak Shikshan Sansthan (2020) 113 taxmann.com 334 (Allhabad H.C.)  U.P. Forest Corporation vs. DCIT (2007) 165 Taxman 533 (SC)  Bhagawan Sree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Educational Society, Adoni vs. ITO (2022) 135 taxmann.com 310 (Hyderabad-Trib.). 2.6 In the case of the assessee, the ld. AR distinguished the case laws relied upon

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi) SHL India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2021] 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bom.) C. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of condonation of delay: 13. The impugned assessment order u/s 153C, dated 18.03.2024, was received by the Appellant on 18.04.2024 after making application on 12.04.2024 (available

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi) SHL India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2021] 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bom.) C. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of condonation of delay: 13. The impugned assessment order u/s 153C, dated 18.03.2024, was received by the Appellant on 18.04.2024 after making application on 12.04.2024 (available

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi) SHL India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2021] 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bom.) C. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of condonation of delay: 13. The impugned assessment order u/s 153C, dated 18.03.2024, was received by the Appellant on 18.04.2024 after making application on 12.04.2024 (available

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi) SHL India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2021] 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bom.) C. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of condonation of delay: 13. The impugned assessment order u/s 153C, dated 18.03.2024, was received by the Appellant on 18.04.2024 after making application on 12.04.2024 (available

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

197 (Chennai) (v) Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Gujarat Cricket Association vs DIT [2012] 19 ITR 520 (Ahd.) 2.4 Attention is drawn towards provisions of section 13(8) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1st April, 2009 which makes it clear that existing registration cannot be withdrawn on account of applicability of proviso to section

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

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) have legal force. Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported by affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect and it was obtained under force, coercion and by lodging

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)

197 Taxman 435 (Del) distinguished” (vii) Anand Shankar Mittal v/s DCIT (2010) 34 DTR 589 (JP Trib) (DPB 9- 19) Therefore, in view of the above, it is humbly prayed that Ld. CIT(A), may be pleased to kindly allow the present application and condone the delay of 640 days occurred in filing the aforesaid Appeal, and direct the listing

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fluct under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence." The Court mentioned above in the definition of evidence would include

ICG-IISU ALUMNAE ASSOCIATION-BANDHAN,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

1: Assessee Trust meant for the benefit of public at large 1.1 It is submitted that the Assessee is a section 8 company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. 1.2. It is reiterated that the Assessee is promoted by IIS (Deemed to be University) Trust which is also solely engaged in imparting education having necessary approvals under section 12AA

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

197 TTJ (Jp) 659 and Hon'ble Apex court in\nthe case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 227 CTR 417 (SC) also\nheld so.\n5. The above decisions were binding upon the AO even if the\ndepartment might have filed SLP in absence of any stay granted over\nthe operation of the said judgments. Thus

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

1. ACIT Vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, (2017) 93 DTR 33( Jaipur Bench.). 2. CIT(E) Vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, (2017) 160 DTR 407 ( Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court). 3. CIT Vs. Idicula Trust Society (2014) (Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court). 4. Heritage Education Society Vs. DIT(E) (2021) 197 DTR 201 (Chandigarh Trib.). 34. In view

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,143, GOMEZ DEFENCE COLONY, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

1. ACIT Vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, (2017) 93 DTR 33( Jaipur Bench.). 2. CIT(E) Vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, (2017) 160 DTR 407 ( Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court). 3. CIT Vs. Idicula Trust Society (2014) (Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court). 4. Heritage Education Society Vs. DIT(E) (2021) 197 DTR 201 (Chandigarh Trib.). 34. In view

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

charitable trust for rehabilitation of earthquake victims was held as not incurred for the Rajasthan State Industries Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. purpose of the business. Similarly, expenditure incurred for running training camps for budding cricketers was held as not incurred for the purpose of business in 2011-TION-250-ITAT-Madras. In 242 ITR 458, articles given to the members

BLOSSOM,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

197 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is 5 Blossom vs. CIT(E) prevented by sufficient cause only on the reasons that on the lapses

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

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

Charitable\nFoundation (2005) 278 ITR 152, considered a situation where the assessee, a\ncharitable trust, had disclosed donations received by it as its income, and\nclaimed exemption u/s. 11. The Assessing Officer, on finding that the\nassessee was unable to satisfactorily explain the donations and the donors\nwere fictitious persons, held that the assessee had tried to introduce\nunaccounted money

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

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

1 except Shri Nawal\nKishore Sharma as the assessee failed to furnish his PAN detail. For the\nremaining transactions tabulated in table # 2, assessee neither furnished\ntheir names, address and PAN of such persons nor did assessee produce\nsuch person. Further, when the assessee was asked about such\ntransactions assessee admitted that such transactions were entered by him\nto meet