MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee corporation

256 CTR 380 (AP) dissented from) Finance Bill, 2015 proposes to amend section 2(15) as under:- In section 2 of the Income-tax Act, with effect from the 1st day of April, 2016,— (a) in clause (15),— (b) (i) after the word "education,", the word "yoga," shall be inserted; (ii) for the first and the second provisos, the following

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee corporation

256 CTR 380 (AP) dissented from) Finance Bill, 2015 proposes to amend section 2(15) as under:- In section 2 of the Income-tax Act, with effect from the 1st day of April, 2016,— (a) in clause (15),— (b) (i) after the word "education,", the word "yoga," shall be inserted; (ii) for the first and the second provisos, the following

INDIAN MEDICAL TRUST,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, JAIPUR

Charitable Trust is AY 2006-07 & 2007- 08 while the case of the assessee, the assessment year involved is 2017-18 and the provision of the Act have been changed vide an amendment in Sec 11 by insertion of clause (6) by the Finance Act,2014 w.e.f. 01-04-2015." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

RITIKA VEGETABLE OIL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Central Circle, Alwar [ For Short Ao].

section 11 and 12 is also not eligible to the appellant on account of misuse of the trust structure for non- chartiable/personal benefits. (viii) In view of the detailed discussion the appellant is not entitled to exemption benefit regarding the money collected as dharmada and thus not entitled to relief on this ground and the appeal of the appellant

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections 147/148 of the Act. If the interpretation as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is accepted then the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by AO u/s 147/148 of the Act would become otiose. Further the statement recorded in search cannot be held to be incriminating material as held in the following

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections 147/148 of the Act. If the interpretation as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is accepted then the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by AO u/s 147/148 of the Act would become otiose. Further the statement recorded in search cannot be held to be incriminating material as held in the following

SHARMA MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A)

charitable in nature. However, the requirement for allowing the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) is the institution must be an educational institution and exists solely for education purposes. Even in case of an institution exists for education purposes but with the motive of profit, then the claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) is not allowable being

KALP-VRIKSH HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE FOUNDATION,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Rejecting The Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred In Facts & In Law Cancelling The Provisional Registration Under Clause (Vi) Of Clause(Ac) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 06-10-2021.’’

charitable activities. Therefore, the applicant claim of registration u/s 12AB is also liable to be rejected on ground of not providing its genuineness of activity and non-compliance. Conclusively, it is noted that the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application by observing as under:- ‘’05. In view of above discussionassessee’s claim of registration section 12AB is liable

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

Bench: Him.

256 (Delhi). 2.15. Attention is also invited towards the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33, wherein the Hon’ble High Court at Para 2 of the order held as under: “In these circumstances, the reason given by the Income-tax Officer for rejecting the book

RAJIV GANDHI VIDHYA PITH SHIKSHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION W(1), JAIPUR

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

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

charitable purposes u/s.11(1)(a) of the I.T.Act in the previous year and in all preceding previous years. The appellant merely submitted alternative proposition of treating the entire expenditure amounting to Rs.1,33,01,255/- incurred for acquisition of capital assets as application of income. I am not inclined to accept the alternative proposition of the appellant to treat

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

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty

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

MOHD. CONST. CO.,KOTA vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

1-2], AO vs. Mass Buildtech (P) Ltd. in ITA No.666/JP/2009 dated 16.07.2010 & in Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 15 (Cal), it was held as under: “AO having rejected the changed method of valuation and determined the closing value of the work-in-progress for the Assessment Year 1986- 87 higher by adding back