SHREE RAJPUT SABHA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 Director of IT (Exemptions) Vs. Shree Nashik\nPanchvatiPanjrapole (Bom) (Case law APB 96-105) CHARITABLE TRUST\nREGISTRATION U/S 12A\nCancellation u/s 12AA(3) vis-à-vis applicability of\nproviso to s. 2(15) – Dominant activity carried out by the assessee trust for over 130\nyears being to take care of old, sick and disabled cows, an incidental activity

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

Charitable Institutions [2014] 363 ITR 230 was affirmed. • Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Working Women Forum [2014] 365 ITR 353 (Madras) • Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust [2001] 249 ITR 533/114 Taxman 19 (Bom.) ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 26 M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, 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)

249 ITR 533 (Bom) (supra). The question before the Bombay High Court is "Whether violation of Section 11(5) r/w Section 13(l)(d) by the assessee-trust attracts maximum marginal rate of tax on the entire income of the Trust? The Bombay High Court held that in case of contravention of Section 13(l)(d), maximum marginal rate

VIVEK SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

trust. 3.1 ITA No. 1134/JPR/2024 relates to the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred seriously in dismissing the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay occurred in filing the appeal without properly appreciating the reasons stated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for Statistical purposes with no order as to cost

249 ITR 533 (Bom.) 7 The DCIT (Exemptions) Circle – Jaipur vs Mahatama Gandhi Charitable Society for Education and Resarch, Jaipur M/s. Santokba Durlabhji Trust Fund vs ITO in ITA No. 169/JP/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 dated 5-11-2014. Jamsedji Tata Trust vs JDIT (Exem.) 101 DTR 305 / 148 ITD 388 (Mum) (Trib.) Considering all these facts, I find that

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

section 234A and 234B of the I.T Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law and is not correctly calculated. 7.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest u/s 234A and 2348. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

section 234A and 234B of the I.T Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law and is not correctly calculated. 7.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest u/s 234A and 2348. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore

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

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

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

trust vs. ITO. (2017) 249 Taxman 0372 (Madras) (Delay 1631 days), held that “Appeal—Condonation of delay—Tribunal refused to entertain appeal of Assessee-charitable institution filed against order passed by CIT(A) only on ground that, it was woefully delayed by 1631 days—Held, there was enormous delay in moving appeal before Tribunal—Assessee had not filed petition

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust vs. ITO (2017) 249 taxman 0372 (Madras) • Hosanna Ministries vs. ITO (2017) DTR 0008 (Mad.) • Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel vs. ITO (2013) 213 Taxman 37 (Mag.) (Guj.) (HC) • Vijay Vishin Meghani & Anr. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (Bom.HC), (2017) 100 CCH 0034 6 Ahluwalia Erectors & Febricators Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT • Diamong Cargo Movers vs. State Tax Officer [2024] 167 taxmann.com

GOVERDHAN SIGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

section 54F of the Act. It was submitted that in spite of above submissions, the AO has not acceded to assessee’s contentions and has denied the exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 5. It was further submitted that some of the notable facts were not judiciously considered by the AO and/or were not denied by the AO though having

SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1460/Jp/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. F-100, Panchsheel Marg, C-Scheme, Ward-6(2), Jaipur-302001. Jaipur. Pan No.: Ahppg 4958 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Reads As Under: “1. The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal In Time At Cit Level As He Got Sick & Mentally Upset Due To Deep Financial Pressure As He Was Suffering From Financial Hardship & Seeked Condonation Of Delay Of 38 Days In Filing The Appeal But His Appeal Was Dismissed By Cit(A) Without Dealing On The Basis Of Merits Of The Case As Cit Sustained The Arbitrarily Disallowance By Ld. Ao Of Lump Sum Addition Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Out Of Other Expenses Without Any Basis. Also Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law By Arbitrarily Disallowing Lump Sum Amount Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Without Issuing Show Cause Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Violation Of The Principle Of Nature Justice.”

249(3) of the Act, an appeal can be admitted even after expiration of the said period, if assessee has sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. He has further submitted that in this case, the assessee could not file the appeal as he was suffering from ac lumbago and back pain patella (knee cap) tracking dysfunction

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

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

Charitable Trust [1987] 31 Taxman 335 /167 ITR 129\n(Raj.) wherein it was held as under:\n“The error envisaged by section 263 was not one which depended on\npossibility or the guess work but it should be actually an error either of\nfact or law. Unless the Commissioner categorically says that there was\nsome income from speculative business

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