RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

charitable entity engaged in imparting education through\nvarious schools and colleges in Jaipur. The return of income for the relevant year\nwas filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the\nAct. The case of the assessee was taken up for \"Limited scrutiny\" on the basis of\nCASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

22 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur (i) Subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 16, any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Charitable Institutions this resets related to denial of exemption, but not on the issue of rescinding exemption granted u/s 10(23C)(vi). The decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Santokba Durlabhji in ITA No. 241 & 242/JP/2014 is also related with the taxability of income arising from the investment which are not specified under the provisions of Section

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Charitable Trust Vs. CBDT &Anr. (2024) 8 NYPCTR 418/ 161 Taxmann.com 209(Case laws compilation index PB 46- 53)has held that the cl. (ii) of the Circular dt. 24th May, 2023 is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, would be ultra vires the Constitution and therefore directed to consider the applications

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Charitable Trust Vs. CBDT &Anr. (2024) 8 NYPCTR 418/ 161 Taxmann.com 209(Case laws compilation index PB 46- 53)has held that the cl. (ii) of the Circular dt. 24th May, 2023 is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, would be ultra vires the Constitution and therefore directed to consider the applications

BHIWADI INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in Section 2(15) viz. 'not involving carrying on any activity of profit' is that when the purpose of a trust or institution

SUNRISE SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Charitable or religious trust —Registration procedure — Assessment year 2010-11 — Whether while examining application seeking registration under section 12AA, manner of application of funds of trust do not fall within purview of Commissioner; Commissioner should only satisfy himself about genuineness of aims and objects of trust/institution and genuineness of its activities as enumerated in clause (b) of sub-section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in section 2(15) viz. ‘not involving carrying on any activity of profit’ is that when the purpose of a trust or institution

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in section 2(15) viz. ‘not involving carrying on any activity of profit’ is that when the purpose of a trust or institution

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in section 2(15) viz. ‘not involving carrying on any activity of profit’ is that when the purpose of a trust or institution

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

charitable trust and mainly\nformed for the upliftment of the cloth merchants of the city but fund of trust\nwas utilized for personal benefit of president. The trust has received interest on\nrefund of Rs.5,278/- which was not shown in ITR filed under section 148\nof the Act. Hence same is also added in total income of the trust

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)

22,97,578/- and that too in status of AOP at maximum marginal rate is sustainable in the facts of the case and in law. The action of ld. AO is, therefore, confirmed and ground No. 2,3 & 4 is, thus dismissed.” Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as case laws cited

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

charitable trust and mainly\nformed for the upliftment of the cloth merchants of the city but fund of trust\nwas utilized for personal benefit of president. The trust has received interest on\nrefund of Rs. 5,278/- which was not shown in ITR filed under section 148 of\nthe Act. Hence same is also added in total income

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Trust Reported in (2014) 90 CCH 0209 (RAJ. HC)(DC 30-32).\nHence, such allegations may be relevant while making the Assessment of a given year\nwhen the AO is empowered to deny or allow the benefit of S. 11 and 12 r/w S.12A of the\nAct.\n1.2Firstly, such aspect should not have been considered

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in section 2(15) viz. ‘not involving carrying on any activity of profit’ is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in section 2(15) viz. ‘not involving carrying on any activity of profit’ is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in section 2(15) viz. ‘not involving carrying on any activity of profit’ is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that