VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

charitable in nature and consequently, assessee was entitled to registration u/s 80G(5) and no merit in order of CIT(A) in this regard and reversing same, it held that renewal of registration u/s section 80G(5) was to be granted to assessee society. Shiv MandirDevsttanPanch Committee SansthanVs. CIT (2012) 79 DTR 276 (Nag.)(Trib.) In this case, assessee

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

276 (SC)\nNew Noble Educational Society vs. CCIT, relevant paras are reproduced as\nunder:\n“It is held that wherever registration of trust or charities is obligatory under state\nor local laws, the concerned trust, society, other institution etc. seeking approval\nunder section 10(23C) should also comply with provisions of such state laws.\nThis would enable the Commissioner

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

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

276 (SC) New Noble\nEducational Society vs. CCIT, relevant paras are reproduced as under:\n“It is held that wherever registration of trust or charities is obligatory under state or\nlocal laws, the concerned trust, society, other institution etc. seeking approval under\nsection 10(23C) should also comply with provisions of such state laws. This would\nenable the Commissioner

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

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

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.,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.,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

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

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

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

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

RAMDULARI BANSAL WELFARE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee society is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

276 (SC), decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Annadan Trust [2018] 96 taxmann.com 207 (Kerala) and also the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Eternal Foundation in ITA No. 1504 & 1505/ JP/ 2018. Ultimately, the application of the assessee in Form No. 10AB is rejected and consequential rejection is there of application filed

RAMDULARI BANSAL WELFARE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee society is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

276 (SC), decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Annadan Trust [2018] 96 taxmann.com 207 (Kerala) and also the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Eternal Foundation in ITA No. 1504 & 1505/ JP/ 2018. Ultimately, the application of the assessee in Form No. 10AB is rejected and consequential rejection is there of application filed

MODERN PUBLIC VIKAS SAMITI TONK,TONK vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 276 & 275/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :- Modern Public Vikas Samiti Mohalla Shorgaran Subhash Bazar, Tonk – 304 001 cuke Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABAM 1303 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

276 & 275/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :- cuke Modern Public Vikas Samiti The CIT (Exemption) Mohalla Shorgaran Subhash Bazar, Vs. Jaipur Tonk – 304 001 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABAM 1303 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Ajay Malik