OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

III under which income which does not form part of total income is to be computed. [Para 13.1] Under section 11(1)(a) when income is applied for acquisition of capital asset which is treated as applied, the claim of depreciation on same income will amount to double deduction. Moreover, as held by the Apex Court that expansion 'applied' means

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

III Section intimated vide letter dated 12th November, 1958, exemption from income tax was given to the trust. The appellant has stated that AO has failed to appreciate that Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Corresponding to section 11(1) of the Act) is available to the assessee, as the following incomes are exempted from

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

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

iii) of third proviso to section 80G(5) was applicable only to newly constructed trust and not to old trust, delay in filing Form No.10AB deserved to be condoned. 7. Otherwise also, CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dt. 25.04.2024 has extended the time for filing the application for permanent approval till 30.06.2024 whereas in earlier Circular No.6/2023 dt. 24.05.2023 the time

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

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

iii) of third proviso to section 80G(5) was applicable only to newly constructed trust and not to old trust, delay in filing Form No.10AB deserved to be condoned. 7. Otherwise also, CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dt. 25.04.2024 has extended the time for filing the application for permanent approval till 30.06.2024 whereas in earlier Circular No.6/2023 dt. 24.05.2023 the time

TREHAN SEVA BHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST,ALWAR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

iii) or sub-clause (v) of clause (ac) of sub-\nsection (1) of section 12A rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration;\n\n(II) in a case referred to in sub-clause (iv) or in item (B) of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (1)\nof section 12A, rejecting such application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being

PORWAL YUVAK SANGH KOTA,KOTA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

iii) Society is running the Business Activity, iv) Application of income not for the object of the trust and v) genuineness of Activities, which are wrong and incorrect looking to the material and details available on record and not considered the same in their true perspective and sense. Hence the rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s. 12AB

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 also support this contention. Thus, the 'partnership firm' and partners have been collectively seen and the distinction between the two was removed in the judicial precedents even for taxation purposes. 6.2.3 On the other hand, interest paid on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(iii) presupposes a transaction between two independent entities, which

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act had been made by the AO, while completing the assessment on\n15/04/2021, the income has been found to be under computed/assessed\nby this amount of Rs.21,732/-, which was erroneous and prejudicial to\nthe interest of Revenue.\"\n4.3.3 Our Submissions:\nAs evident from the impugned part of the Ld. CIT that that

LAXMAN NAINANI,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

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

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

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 100 CTR (Del) 160 and KhatauJunkarItd. Vs. K.S Pathania, Dy.CIT (1992) 102 CTR (Bom) 194 referred and reproduced in Modern Fibotex and also so opined by CBDT in its binding in Circular No. 581 dated 28.09.1990 reported in [1990] 186 ITR (St.) 2. Therefore, the law laid down

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

charitable trust. In order to buttress its arguments, the appellant has placed reliance upon the following decisions/case laws: Judgment of ITAT Kolkata in the case of JMS Mining Pvt Ltd vs. PCIT (ITA/146/Kol/2021 dated 22.07.2021) Malabar Industries Ltd vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 1993) Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT in IT(TP) A No. 2355/Bang/2019 Allegis

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year— (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; or (ii) any funds

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,KOTA vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the Grounds No

Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 also support this contention. Thus, the 'partnership firm' and partners have been collectively seen and the distinction between the two was removed in the judicial precedents even for taxation purposes. 6.2.3 On the other hand, interest paid on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(iii) presupposes a transaction between two independent entities, which

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 also support this contention. Thus, the 'partnership firm' and partners have been collectively seen and the distinction between the two was removed in the judicial precedents even for taxation purposes. 6.2.3 On the other hand, interest paid on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(iii) presupposes a transaction between two independent entities, which

SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1), from the first of the assessment year for which it was provisionally registered: Provided further that where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA or section 12AB], then, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under

SAKSHAM SAMAJIK UTTHAN AVEM VIKAS SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

iii) to the society in Form 10AC, vide unique Registration No. AALAS0722MF20221 for the period from 06-04-2022 to AY 2024.25 on dated 06/04/2022 in favour of M/s Saksham Samajik Utthan Avem Vikas Sansthan Saksham Samajik Uttan Avem Vikas Sansthan vs. CIT (E) 1. Under the facts and circumstances, order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur under section 12AB

SAKSHAM SAMAJIK UTTHAN AVEM VIKAS SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

iii) to the society in Form 10AC, vide unique Registration No. AALAS0722MF20221 for the period from 06-04-2022 to AY 2024.25 on dated 06/04/2022 in favour of M/s Saksham Samajik Utthan Avem Vikas Sansthan Saksham Samajik Uttan Avem Vikas Sansthan vs. CIT (E) 1. Under the facts and circumstances, order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur under section 12AB

SAKSHAM SAMAJIK UTTHAN AVEM VIKAS SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

iii) to the society in Form 10AC, vide unique Registration No. AALAS0722MF20221 for the period from 06-04-2022 to AY 2024.25 on dated 06/04/2022 in favour of M/s Saksham Samajik Utthan Avem Vikas Sansthan Saksham Samajik Uttan Avem Vikas Sansthan vs. CIT (E) 1. Under the facts and circumstances, order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur under section 12AB

SAKSHAM SAMAJIK UTTHAN AVEM VIKAS SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

iii) to the society in Form 10AC, vide unique Registration No. AALAS0722MF20221 for the period from 06-04-2022 to AY 2024.25 on dated 06/04/2022 in favour of M/s Saksham Samajik Utthan Avem Vikas Sansthan Saksham Samajik Uttan Avem Vikas Sansthan vs. CIT (E) 1. Under the facts and circumstances, order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur under section 12AB

SHRI VERDHMAN STHANAKVASI JAIN SHRISANGH,KOTA vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

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

III. The registration was refused by Id. CIT(E) for the following three reasons: 1. Object for the benefit of particular group 2. Absence of dissolution clause 3. Genuineness of activities and non-compliance IV. The registration refused by Id. CIT(E) on the three reasons above is totally unjustified as explained below: 1. Object for the benefit of particular