SOPHICAL SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,AJMER vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 12AA by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01/06/2010. Further these powers of commission to cancel registration of charitable trust is not retrospectively. ACIT vs Agra Development Authority (2018) 90 Taxman.com 282 (All) Further when form 10A filed on 13/07/2020 (online) the CITE on merits u/sec. 12AA(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is suppose to grant or refuse registration within

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)

264 (Jaipur - Trib.) accepted the above proposition and held that Explanation to section 92B enhancing its scope to be applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. 4.37. It is submitted that when the assessee made cash sales, the amended provisions of section 115BBE were not in existence. 4.38. Where an amendment, as under 92B, although was introduced having a retrospective effect

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

264 and submitted that reopening based on change of opinion is not permissible. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 12.04.2016 in case of Smt. Rama Goyal vs. ITO in ITA No. 465/JP/2016. He has also referred to a number of decisions on this point and has submitted that reopening

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

264 and submitted that reopening based on change of opinion is not permissible. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 12.04.2016 in case of Smt. Rama Goyal vs. ITO in ITA No. 465/JP/2016. He has also referred to a number of decisions on this point and has submitted that reopening

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

264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct….’’ (Emphasis Supplied) Based on the material available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO Accordingly, these Grounds of Appeal are dismissed 7. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground No. 4. 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

264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct….’’ (Emphasis Supplied) Based on the material available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO Accordingly, these Grounds of Appeal are dismissed 7. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground No. 4. That

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (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

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).

264 ITR 254(High 9-17 Court of Gauhati) 4. CIT Vs. Korley Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (High Court of Calcutta) 18-19 5. Kamal Motors vs. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155(High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur 20-21 Bench) 6. CIT vs. R.S. Rathore[1996] 86 Taxman 20(High Court of Rajasthan

SETH RAMJIDAS MODI VIDHYA NIKETAN SOCIETY,KOTA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIO), JAIPUR

Section 10(23C)(VI) of the Act deserves to be quashed. 4. The ld. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in recording the findings adverse to the appellant assesse society which are contrary to the facts and material already on record and therefore, such finding kindly be negated/quashed. 5. The appellant

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)

section 264 and not in appellate proceedings. The action of Id. ADDL/JCIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by entertaining the claim at appellate stage. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in confirming the action

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)

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 for condonation of delay, which was supported by affidavit of Assessee—Chartered Accountant engaged in matter was unaware of fact that appeal could be filed