ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Charitable Trust [2015] 58 taxmann.com 335/232 Taxman340/[2014] 369 ITR 360 (Raj.). The Tribunal also noted that once the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) then the limitation for passing the order/decision cannot be more than the limitation provided for deciding the application under section 12AA of the Act. There is no dispute that as per the provisions

RAATH VIDYAPEETH,ALWAR vs. ITO (EXMP.), WARD-ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

251 of the Income Tax Act, the ld. CIT(A) has no power to set aside the issue as he enjoys coterminous powers with the AO. Hence, the ld. AR wants a direction to the AO to allow depreciation as application of income. After analysing the entire facts and circumstances and particular facts of the present case more particularly taking

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

251 ITR 263. The ratio laid down in this case was that Sec.68 shall not apply on share application money. "13 We have considered the rival contentions, relevant material on record, as also the cited decisions. In 192 ITR 287 Steller Investment Ltd., Honble Delhi High Court has laid down as under: "It is evident that even

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 46A(3), the Learned CIT(A), before taking into account the additional evidences furnished by the assessee allowed an opportunity to the Learned Assessing Officer by calling a remand report. The Learned Assessing Officer submitted remand report under letter dated

RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

trust\nwas rejected by the Id. AO by observing as under:\nNow assessee has filed application us/154 with the explanation\nthat the excess expenditure was met out from accumulated funds of\nearlier years i.e. F.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13 and therefore,\nset-\napart of 15% claimed is correct and therefore, requested to rectify the\nsame by passing order

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

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

charitable trust, had disclosed donations received by it as its income, and claimed\nexemption u/s.11. The Assessing Officer, on finding that the assessee was unable to\nsatisfactorily explain the donations and the donors were fictitious persons, held that\nthe assessee had tried to introduce unaccounted money in its books by way of\ndonations and, therefore, the amount

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

GANGAUR EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

251/- out of the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act claimed by the assessee was disallowed. 4. On culmination of the assessment proceedings the ld. PCIT has called for the records for examination. The ld. PCIT on perusal of the assessment records, noticed that the assessee had incurred expenditure under the head of corporate social responsibility

JAIPUR JEWELLERY SHOW,JAIPUR vs. ACIT-DCIT CIRCLE (EXEMP.), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

charitable activity being and advancement of object of general public utility, while the profit margin is meagre, the claim of exemption ought to be extended. 4.4 It is evident that the appellant had failed to comprehend the contents and principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of AUDA (supra). The Court had categorically said that when