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

2)(c) and section\n13(3) of the Act. Following specific instances have been found, viz:- a. As per reply\ndated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan\nSinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to\nNarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan

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

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Charitable Trust [1987] 31 Taxman 335 /167 ITR 129 (Raj )wherein it was held as under: 16 SMT. GAYATRI DEVI VS PR.CIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR “The error envisaged by section 263 was not one which depended on possibility or the guess work but it should be actually an error either of fact or law. Unless the Commissioner categorically says that there

SWAMI KESHWANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 273/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke C.I.T. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur Is Illegal & Against The Law Because The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Examined & Considered The Matter Involved In This Order. 2. That The Donation So Received Was Received For A Specific Purpose & Use, Hence It Was Corpus Donation. The Corpus Donation Cannot Be Treated As Part Of Income & Expenditure Account.

2. Kantilal Manilal Charitable Trust (2014) 63 SOT 142 (Ahmedabad) 5. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is legal and speaking order and fulfills all the ingredients of Section 263

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2 & 3 which are inter-connected, and the same are being reproduced as under :- M/s Zari Silk (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Arun Palawat, Jaipur. “1.1 It is verifiable from the revision order that Ld. PCIT invoked the provisions of sec. 263 only on the ground that alleged escaped income was added to the assessee’s total income under normal provisions, whereas

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2 & 3 which are inter-connected, and the same are being reproduced as under :- M/s Zari Silk (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Arun Palawat, Jaipur. “1.1 It is verifiable from the revision order that Ld. PCIT invoked the provisions of sec. 263 only on the ground that alleged escaped income was added to the assessee’s total income under normal provisions, whereas

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

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

ARUN KUMAR PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PR CIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 28th December, 2020 (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai) delivered by the honble President and vice president as under: “20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is “when Commissioner is of the view,” but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subject

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)

2 to sub section (1) of section 37, any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of the business or profession. Thus, the expenditure

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.

Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 28th December, 2020 (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai) delivered by the honble President and vice president as under: “20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is “when Commissioner is of the view,” but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subject

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.

Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 28th December, 2020 (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai) delivered by the honble President and vice president as under: “20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is “when Commissioner is of the view,” but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subject

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.

Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 28th December, 2020 (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai) delivered by the honble President and vice president as under: “20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is “when Commissioner is of the view,” but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subject

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 28th December, 2020 (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai), has observed as under: “20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is “when Commissioner is of the view,” but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subject to any judicial scrutiny or that such

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)ITA No.\n3909/Mum/201928th December, 2020(2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai)\ndelivered by the honble President and vice president as under:\n\"20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263\nis \"when Commissioner is of the view,” but that does not mean that the\nview so formed by the Commissioner is not subject

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)

Charitable Institution, advancing loan amount to M/s.JanamadhyamaPrakashana Limited and obtaining exemption in payment of income tax is in violation of Section 11(5) of the Act. As per Section 13(1)(a), income of the trust shall not be entitled for exemption under sections 11and 12 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the advance made to M/s. JanamadhyamaPrakashana

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 28th December, 2020 (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai) delivered by the honble President and vice president as under: 22 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur “20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is “when Commissioner is of the view,” but that does not mean that the view so formed

ASHUTOSH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Trust vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION) ITA No. 3909/Mum/2019 28th December, 2020 (2021) 209 TTJ 0409 (Mumbai) delivered by the honble President and vice president as under: “20. Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is “when Commissioner is of the view,” but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subject

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

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

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

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee society had filed an online application under section 12AA dated 12.01.2019 in Form No.10A seeking registration under section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. However, the said Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhilwara. application of the assessee rejected by the ld. CIT (Exemption) vide order dated 31.07.2019 on the ground that