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

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

Charitable Trust Vs. CBDT &Anr. (2024) 8 NYPCTR 418/ 161 Taxmann.com 209(Case laws compilation index PB 46- 53)has held that the cl. (ii) of the Circular dt. 24th May, 2023 is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, would be ultra vires the Constitution and therefore directed to consider the applications

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

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

Charitable Trust Vs. CBDT &Anr. (2024) 8 NYPCTR 418/ 161 Taxmann.com 209(Case laws compilation index PB 46- 53)has held that the cl. (ii) of the Circular dt. 24th May, 2023 is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, would be ultra vires the Constitution and therefore directed to consider the applications

SHRI MERH KSHTRIYA SABHA,AJMER vs. CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

section 68 to made.\nFurther DIT V/s Hans Raj Samark Society (2013) 35 Taxman.com 642 (Delhi) has\nalso confirmed the aforesaid views.\nPara 25.2 of circular no. 14/2006 dated 28.12.2006 has further clarified that-\nAnonymous donation made to wholly charitable and religious trust

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 2(15) doesn’t apply in the instant case. 36. We also refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of DIT (Exemptions) vs Gujarat Cricket Association (supra) and the relevant findings read as under: “35. It appears from the line of reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) that both

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 2(15) doesn’t apply in the instant case. 36. We also refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of DIT (Exemptions) vs Gujarat Cricket Association (supra) and the relevant findings read as under: “35. It appears from the line of reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) that both

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 2(15) doesn’t apply in the instant case. 36. We also refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of DIT (Exemptions) vs Gujarat Cricket Association (supra) and the relevant findings read as under: “35. It appears from the line of reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) that both

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

35,061/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nSection 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed by the assessee appellant\ntrust.\n5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the addition made by ld. assessing

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

Trust (2013) 355 ITR 280 (P&H HC)-\nNon-disposal within six months results in deemed grant.\n2.2.5 DIT(E) v. St. Ann's Educational Society (2020) 425 ITR 642 (Kar HC) -\nSimilar view of deemed approval.\n3. REVENUE'S COUNTER-LATER BINDING PRECEDENTS\n3.1 Supreme Court has settled the law that there is no deeming fiction.\n3.1.1

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred

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

35,061/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nsection 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed by the assessee appellant\ntrust.\n5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the addition made by ld. assessing

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

charitable objects of the Appellant Trust.\n5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred